federal courts not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”
How later courts described this case
- federal courts not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”
- affirming dismissal of West Memphis Police Department and West Memphis Paramedic Services because they were “not juridical entities suable as such”
- court must accept factual allegations in the complaint as true but is not required to “accept as true any ‘legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation’” (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KIERRA MARTIN, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
v. ) No. 4:25-cv-00086-SEP
)
ST. LOUIS METROPOLITAN POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Kierra Martin’s Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, Doc. [2]. On review of the application
and financial information provided therein, the Court grants the application and waives the filing
fee. For the reasons set forth below, the case is dismissed without prejudice.
LEGAL STANDARD ON INITIAL REVIEW
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if it is frivolous or malicious, or if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To state a claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more
than a “mere possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678.
“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief” is “a context-specific task
that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at
679. The court must “accept as true the facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or ‘threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.’” Barton
v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir. 2016) (citation modified) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678);
see also Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73 (8th Cir. 2016) (court must
accept factual allegations in the complaint as true but is not required to “accept as true any ‘legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation’” (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678)).
When reviewing a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give it
the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A “liberal
construction” means that, “if the essence of an allegation is discernible . . . then the district court
within the proper legal framework.” Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004)). Still, even pro se complaints must
“allege facts, which if true, state a claim as a matter of law.” Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d
1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980); see also Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15 (federal courts not required to
“assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have
formed a stronger complaint”). And “procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation” need not be
“interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.” McNeil v. United
States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff files the Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the St. Louis
Metropolitan Police Department and the Council Tower Apartments violated her constitutional
rights.1 For her statement of claim, she writes:
1. What happened to you? Found my love one dead on the floor
2. When did it happen? January 13, 2025
3. Where did it happen? St. Louis City
4. What injuries did you suffer? Death of a loved one
5. What did each defendant personally do, or fail to do, to harm you?
Officer on the scene didn’t investigate the scene correctly. Kept saying it wasn’t
foul play didn’t get footage of last [e]ncounters with loved one left [potential]
evidence didn’t secure the scene. I ask officers can they get footage so it won’t be
lost [or] altered. And he kept saying no. Because it’s not foul play. Scene and
cause of death doesn’t match what they trying to say cause of death is.
Doc. [1] at 5. For relief, Plaintiff seeks “a judge to . . . order management and the property
management [t]o see [who] all was in my love[d] one[’s] apartment up until her death. Retain
video footage of all areas. And last contact from her dwelling.” Id. She also seeks video
footage of all areas around her loved one’s apartment. Id.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to properly investigate a potential crime scene. A
failure-to-investigate claim can be brought pursuant to the Due Process Clause if the plaintiff can
show that the actions of the investigating officers shocked the conscience. Scheeler v. City of St.
1 Ms. Martin names as Plaintiffs herself and other family members. Because this action is subject to
dismissal on other grounds, the Court does not address the issue of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422
U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (A party “generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest
his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.”).
Cloud, Minn., 402 F.3d 826, 831 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Wilson v. Lawrence Cnty., 260 F.3d 946,
956 (8th Cir. 2001)). Plaintiff “must show that the defendants displayed a deliberate indifference
to [plaintiff's] right to access the courts through their investigation of [their relative’s] death.”
Id. Because Plaintiff has not identified any part of the investigation that shocks the conscience
or shows deliberate indifference on the part of the police, Plaintiffs claims against Defendants
for failure to investigate are dismissed.
The claims against the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department are also subject to
dismissal because the Police Department is not a suable entity under § 1983. See Ketchum v.
City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal of West
Memphis Police Department and West Memphis Paramedic Services because they were “not
juridical entities suable as such”). As for Defendant Council Tower Apartments, a private
company is liable only for actions taken under color of state law. Crumpley-Patterson v. Trinity
Lutheran. Hosp., 388 F.3d 588, 590 (8th Cir. 2004) (“Section 1983 secures most constitutional
rights from infringement by governments, not private parties. Where a private party acts under
color of state law, however, it can be held liable under § 1983.” (citation omitted)). Plaintiffs
failure to allege that the company took any action under color of state law provides an additional
basis for dismissal of the claims against Council Tower Apartments.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. [2], is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, Doc. [3], is
DENIED as moot.
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 7th day of August, 2025. LO )
Trak □ ( fagK
SARAHE.PITLYK © SSCS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE