Garth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAVAUGHN KENNETH LEE GARTH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:25-cv-00054-SRW

)

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL )

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the submission of self-represented Plaintiff JaVaughn

Kenneth Lee Garth’s complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed his

complaint on July 22, 2025, and paid his filing fee in full on July 24, 2025. The Court has

reviewed the complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and will dismiss this action for failure

to state a claim. Further, all of Plaintiff’s pending motions will be denied.

Background

Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who is currently incarcerated at Northeast

Correctional Center in Bowling Green, Missouri. Based on an independent review of Plaintiff’s

state court proceedings on Missouri Case.net, the State of Missouri’s online docketing system,

Plaintiff was indicted on 11 felonies, including second degree murder and robbery on October

14, 2009. State v. Garth, 09SL-CR05786-01 (St. Louis County Circuit Court). On January 10,

2011, Plaintiff pled guilty to all the charges. Id. He received sentences ranging from seven to

twenty years in prison, all running concurrent with each other. Id.

Legal Standard on Initial Review

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to review a civil complaint “in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The term “prisoner” is defined as “any person incarcerated or

detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent

for, violations of criminal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c). Pursuant to this section, the Court must

dismiss a complaint if it “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted,” or if it “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Here, Plaintiff is a convicted state prisoner who is suing the Office of

General Counsel of the Missouri Department of Corrections. Therefore, his complaint is subject

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A screening.

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 upon 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) (stating that court must accept factual allegations in complaint as true, but is

not required to “accept as true any legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).

The Complaint

Plaintiff filed the instant action on July 22, 2025. ECF No. 1. Despite being a convicted

and sentenced state prisoner, Plaintiff does not identify his prisoner status other than to claim he

is “held captive.” Id. at 2. He brings this suit against only one defendant – the Office of General

Counsel of the Missouri Department of Corrections, in its official capacity. Id.

Plaintiff repeatedly refers to himself as the “authorized representative of GARTH,

JAVAUGHN KENNETH LEE, ESTATE.” See id. at 4. His statement of the claim notes that he

was taken into custody in 2011. Id. at 3. He states that he has a low mental health score. Id. He

then goes on to list over a dozen Missouri State statutes that reference trusts and estates,

distribution of an estate, investment guidelines, and guardianships. Id. at 3-4. He also lists

several federal statutes that reference Social Security and grants to States. Id. at 4. He does not

explain why he lists these statutes, or their relevance to his claim. His sole complaint among this

long list of statutes is that the defendant is violating the Fourteenth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. §

914 by falsely “acting as administrator of Petitioner’s ESTATE.”1 Id.

For injuries, Plaintiff alleges to have PTSD, pain and suffering, anxiety, and mental

anguish. Id. For relief, he requests, “Grant Petitioner delivery of Petitioner’s real property by the

minor; terminate the custodian’s powers, duties, and rights with respect to the real property.” He

requests punitive damages in the amount of $66 billion.

Discussion

Based on a careful review and liberal construction of the filings before the Court, the

Court will dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

1 Plaintiff refers to himself throughout the complaint as Petitioner and refers to the defendant as Respondent.

1. Official Capacity

Plaintiff’s sole claim is against the Office of General Counsel of the Missouri Department

of Corrections in its official capacity. “Section 1983 provides for an action against a ‘person’ for

a violation, under color of law, of another’s civil rights.” McLean v. Gordon, 548 F.3d 613, 618

(8th Cir. 2008). However, “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are

‘persons’ under § 1983.” Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); see also

Calzone v. Hawley, 866 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir. 2017) (stating that a “State is not a person under

§ 1983”). Moreover, the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a state or its agencies for any

kind of relief, not merely monetary damages. Monroe v. Arkansas State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 594

(8th Cir. 2007). Because Plaintiff has only sued officials of a government agency in their official

capacity, his claim must be dismissed.

2. Failure to State a Claim

Plaintiff has failed to establish any plausible claim for relief. The complaint is filled with

cites to state and federal statutes that have no meaningful connection to a § 1983 claim. Plaintiff

argues that he is the personal representative of his estate. An estate, as referred to by Plaintiff, is

the real and personal property of a deceased person. See In re Est. of Shuh, 248 S.W.3d 82, 88

(Mo. App. E.D. 2008). Plaintiff is not deceased, so he has no estate. His sole complaint is that

the defendant is falsely claiming to be the personal representative of his estate. Because there is

no estate at issue, this claim necessarily fails. There is no way to interpret any of the Plaintiff’s

arguments such that they would state a plausible claim for relief. As such, his claim must be

dismissed.

Pending Motions

Since filing his complaint, Plaintiff has also filed a total of 23 motions, and 14 other

various filings. Like his complaint, these filings and motions are not based in law or reality. The

motions before the Court include: a motion to release property, an emergency writ of replevin,

actions in rem, a motion for garnishment and sequestration, a motion to release vessel and crew,

a writ of amnesty, and motions for supplemental rules for admiralty and maritime claims and

asset forfeiture, among others. See ECF Nos. 10-12, 26-27, 32, 38. Throughout these motions,

Plaintiff refers to himself as an estate, a surety, a freeman, and a corporation. One motion cites to

Missouri statutes regarding unborn children. ECF No. 37. In that motion, Plaintiff asks the Court

to “release unborn child JaVaughn Garth immediately.” /d. at 3. It would not be worth the

Court’s time to go through each of these motions, as they are all similarly nonsensical. All

pending motions before the Court will be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's pending motions [ECF Nos. 2, 8, 10-13,

18-19, 23-28, 30, 32-33, 36-41] are DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in

good faith.

An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.

Dated this 18" day of November, 2025.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE