Breeze

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

DA’SHAE SUMMER BREEZE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 4:25-cv-01641-HEA

)

JESSICA UNKNOWN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Da’Shae Summer Breeze’s civil

rights complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to a

serious medical need. The Court will order Plaintiff to amend her complaint as

instructed below on a Court-provided form. Additionally, the Court will order

Plaintiff to either pay the $405 filing fee or submit a form application to proceed in

district court without prepaying fees and costs.

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 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 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

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); see also Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371,

372-73 (8th Cir. 2016) (court not required to “accept as true any legal conclusion

couched as a factual allegation”).

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)). But 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”).

Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a medical

technician employed by Centurion, Jessica Unknown, and 16 other Centurion and

MDOC employees located at South Central Correctional Center and the Eastern

Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center (ERDCC). She sues all Defendants

only in their official capacities.

Plaintiff is a transgender woman, currently housed at ERDCC, and is

prescribed 4 milligrams of estrogen per day. She states that beginning January 1,

2025, Defendant Jessica gave her only 2 milligrams of estrogen per day. Jessica

refused to verify Plaintiff’s prescription and denied Plaintiff her written and verbal

health services requests (HSRs). After Plaintiff submitted an informal resolution

request (IRR), Jessica denied Plaintiff all of her medications including life saving

medications. She then began referring to Plaintiff as “this thing,” and told other

inmates, “this thing wears a bra, it takes hormone therapy.” Doc. [1] at 6. She

informed Plaintiff that she did not agree with her prescribed medical treatment, and

mocked what she believed to be Plaintiff’s sexual orientation. She then told other

inmates to assault Plaintiff.

This behavior continued for months, culminating with Plaintiff being sexually

assaulted by her cellmate. On February 9 or 10, 2025, Jessica informed Plaintiff’s

cellmate in front of other inmates that she refused “to give that thing her estrogen

meds.” Doc. [1] at 6. Plaintiff had not told her cellmate that she identified as

result of Jessica’s public disclosure of Plaintiff’s medical information, Plaintiff’s

cellmate began to harass her. Plaintiff’s cellmate asked to see her breasts, and when

Plaintiff refused, her cellmate beat her during the night. Plaintiff immediately filed

a Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) report.

Plaintiff states, “Before this time we had no issues and he did not know I was

transgender. I was humiliated, harassed and harmed. [Jessica] is the main

catalyst/cause of this negative interaction. I suffer mentally and physically today

because of this, and she is now employed at ERDCC. Every time I see her, I cry,

have labored breathing, nightmares, flashbacks, hysteria, depression, sadness,

thoughts of suicide, fear, hypertension, headaches, and other physical and mental

[symptoms].” Id. at 7.

Although Plaintiff has made no specific allegations against the remaining

Defendants, she states that all Defendants ignored and disregarded her complaints

about her health care, and disregarded her IRR and PREA allegations. For relief,

Plaintiff seeks $10 million in damages.

Discussion

Plaintiff has likely stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim

against Defendant Jessica. But she has sued Jessica and all other Defendants only

in their official (not individual) capacities, which subjects her complaint to

dismissal. Additionally, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations against the remaining

constitutional violations. Because Plaintiff is proceeding as a self-represented

litigant, and has presented serious allegations to the Court, she will be allowed to

amend her complaint on a Court-provided form according to the instructions below.

Plaintiff must specify whether she intends to sue each Defendant in an official

capacity, an individual capacity, or both. The failure to sue a Defendant in his or

her individual capacity may result in the dismissal of that Defendant. If Plaintiff is

suing a Defendant in an individual capacity, she is required to allege facts

demonstrating the personal responsibility of the Defendant for harming her. See

Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990) (stating that § 1983

liability “requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of

rights”). Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that the “Statement of Claim” requires

more than “labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

of action.” See Neubauer v. FedEx Corp., 849 F.3d 400, 404 (8th Cir. 2017). It is

important that Plaintiff establish the responsibility of each separate Defendant for

harming her. For each Defendant, Plaintiff must allege facts showing how that

particular Defendant’s acts or omissions violated her constitutional rights.

It is not enough for Plaintiff to make general allegations against all the

Defendants as a group or to allege all Defendants conspired with one another.

Rather, Plaintiff needs to provide the role of each named Defendant in this case, in

order that each specific Defendant can receive notice of what he or she is accused of

2014).

Plaintiff is cautioned that the filing of an amended complaint completely

replaces the original complaint. This means that claims that are not re-alleged in the

amended complaint will be deemed abandoned. See In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost

Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) (“It is well-established that

an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original

complaint without legal effect”).

After receiving the amended complaint, the Court will review it pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff’s failure to make specific factual allegations against a

Defendant will result in the dismissal of that Defendant. If Plaintiff fails to file an

amended complaint on a Court-provided form within 30 days in accordance with the

instructions set forth herein, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and

without further notice to Plaintiff.

Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs

In a separate document, Plaintiff states that she has been unable to get a six-

month account statement from ERDCC. She submitted instead a two-month prison

account statement, but has not filed an application to proceed in district court without

prepayment of fees and costs. The Court will direct the Clerk of Court to send

Plaintiff the application. Plaintiff shall complete the application, and submit any

account statement she has available.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff (1) an

application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees and costs, and (2) a

prisoner civil rights complaint form.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall complete and file both

forms in accordance with the Opinion, Memorandum and Order on or before

December 8, 2025.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not comply with this

Opinion, Memorandum and Order, the Court will dismiss this action without

prejudice and without further notice.

Dated this 6" day of November, 2025.

Kash doed [lbp

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_7-