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”
- a corporation acting under color of state law will be held liable only where “there is a policy, custom or action by those who represent official policy that inflicts injury actionable under § 1983”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SUPASTAR WARE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:24-cv-01008-SEP
)
CENTURION HEALTH CARE, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Supastar Ware’s Amended Complaint. Doc. [10]. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses this action for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and
Correctional Center (ERDCC) in Bonne Terre, Missouri, sues Defendant Centurion Health Care
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 On November 12, 2024, the Court issued an order informing
Plaintiff that the Complaint failed to state a claim against Centurion because Plaintiff had not
alleged that any official policy, unofficial custom, or failure to train or supervise on the part of
Centurion caused the alleged constitutional violations. See Doc. [9]. Because the allegations
were serious, the Court provided Plaintiff with instructions for filing an Amended Complaint.
Id. On November 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which is now before the
Court on initial review.
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
1 Plaintiff has four other cases pending in this Court: Ware v. Precythe, et al., No. 4:25-cv-488-
SRW (E.D. Mo. filed Apr. 11, 2025); Ware v. Galloway, et al., 4:25-cv-562-SRW (E.D. Mo.
filed Apr. 22, 2025); Ware v. Department of Corrections Missouri, et al., No. 4:25-cv-605-SRW
(E.D. Mo. filed Apr. 29, 2025); and Ware v. Doe, et al., No. 4:25-cv-782-SRW (E.D. Mo. filed
May 28, 2025).
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) (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
should construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered
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 AMENDED COMPLAINT
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims to have been sexually assaulted on two
separate occasions by ERDCC correctional staff and denied medical care by Centurion after both
incidents. Plaintiff also makes three claims unrelated to the alleged sexual assaults.
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Irving placed Plaintiff on suicide watch on April 19, 2023, in
retaliation for filing Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) reports on staff. Plaintiff claims to
have been dragged into an unsanitary cell where Plaintiff’s clothing was ripped and cut off.
Plaintiff states, “Medical malpractice denied me any care, according to policy!” Doc. [10] at 12.
On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff claims that Sgt. Hummel retaliated against Plaintiff for filing a PREA
report by slamming the food port door on Plaintiff’s fingers. Plaintiff states that “medical staff
did not provide any care at all according to policy[.] I was granted standard care but did not
receive it!” Id. at 13. Finally, Plaintiff brings a claim titled “Procedural Due Process,” stating:
Medical malpractice and mental health did not follow protocol regarding any policy and
procedures! Fabricating a response to grievance officers. Mr. Bryon Farmer, RN gave
untrue statements! Did not provide standard care as policy states. See camera footage as
well as health service request forms in documents!
Id. at 14.
Plaintiff documents the following injuries: bleeding, swollen anal cavity and fingers,
extraordinary pain, back pain, and hemorrhoids. Plaintiff also reports suffering from severe
anxiety, depression, mood swings, PTSD, nightmares, manic episodes, and emotional trauma.
Plaintiff seeks $4,999,999 in damages, and for MDOC to terminate its contract with Centurion.
DISCUSSION
As the Court stated in its prior order, to maintain a § 1983 suit against a corporation such
as Centurion, the plaintiff “must show that there was a policy, custom, or official action that
inflicted an actionable injury.” Johnson v. Hamilton, 452 F.3d 967, 973 (8th Cir. 2006); see also
Sanders v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972, 976 (8th Cir. 1993) (a corporation acting under
color of state law will be held liable only where “there is a policy, custom or action by those who
represent official policy that inflicts injury actionable under § 1983”).
Although the Amended Complaint alleges that Centurion denied Plaintiff medical care
“according to policy,” Doc. [10] at 12, 13, and “medical did not follow nor abide by policy and
protocol,” id. at 14, Plaintiff’s allegations are entirely conclusory. Plaintiff has pointed to no
policy, custom, or official action of Centurion to deny medical care to inmates alleging sexual
assault and/or retaliation. Indeed, Plaintiff claims to have been denied treatment according to
policy and because medical staff did not follow policy. Compare id. at 12-13, with id. at 14.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is therefore dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following motions are DENIED as moot:
Motion for Issuance of Summons, Doc. [8]; Motion for Default Judgment, Doc. [12]; Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, Doc. [15]; and Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. [18].
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 8th day of August, 2025.
ff , 149
□□ fact {GK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE