Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

JOEVALIS LAWRENCE JOHNSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 1:25-cv-00195-RWS

)

CENTURION DENTAL, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Joevalis Lawrence Johnson’s Application to

Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees and Costs. (Doc. 2). Based on Plaintiff’s

financial information, the Court grants his application and assesses a $1.80 initial partial filing fee.

Additionally, for the reasons set forth below, the Court orders Plaintiff to file an amended

complaint using the Court-provided form.

Initial Partial Filing Fee

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), a prisoner bringing a civil action without prepayment

of fees and costs is required to pay the full amount of the filing fee. If the prisoner has insufficient

funds in his or her prison account to pay the entire fee, the Court must assess and, when funds

exist, collect an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of (1) the average monthly

deposits in the prisoner’s account, or (2) the average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for

the prior six-month period. After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner is required

to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the

prisoner’s account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Plaintiff has submitted a certified account statement for the period April 23, 2025 to

October 10, 2025. Doc. 3. Based on this financial information, the Court finds Plaintiff has an

fee of $1.80, which is 20 percent of his average monthly deposit.

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 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); 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);

just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”).

The Complaint

Plaintiff brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendant

Centurion Dental was deliberately indifferent to his serious dental needs. His complaint is difficult

to comprehend, but he seems to allege that he suffers from a rare, unspecified dental condition that

includes problems with his temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Doc. 6 at 5. Plaintiff’s current

complaint is that his dental fitting causes him pain and that a sergeant at Southeast Correctional

Center (SECC) has misplaced his partial dentures and he requires a new set.

Plaintiff alleges that five years ago, he placed a health service request to be seen by a

dentist. “At that time they [tried] to pull my teeth but I had got lock jaw and they couldn’t continue

the work.” Id. at 7. Plaintiff transferred facilities, from Potosi Correctional Center (PCC) to

SECC, where he was sent twice to an oral specialist in Jefferson City to examine problems with

his TMJ. Id. at 4. He states he was approved to have his teeth pulled:

I had keep going out for the check ups about the issue. It had taken some time for

it to be done. But they had gotten it taken care of. Like I explain[ed] above the

issue was taken care of the remov[al] of the four teeth been pulled. But then the

issue began which is my new complaint was the problem and the first place that

they was saying that my jaw needed to be rebroken but that never happen[ed].

Id. at 5. Plaintiff states that since he has had his dental work done, he is having problems with his

jaw. He states that he received a fitting to wear at night but it caused so much pain that he cannot

wear it. “Also I was given a partial/denture to [wear] but since I received them a [Sergeant] has

taken them and so how [sic] misplace them to where I am in need of another fitting and because

of the wait my TMJ issue getting really bad.” Id. at 7.

Plaintiff attaches to his complaint SECC’s response to his informal resolution request,

grievance response, and grievance appeal response. Based on these letters, Plaintiff saw an oral

15. He followed up with SECC’s dental provider on May 6, 2025, and the provider referred

Plaintiff to see the specialist once his partials were ready. This referral was approved and

scheduled. Id. Plaintiff states that in response to his grievance his “needs [were] somewhat met.

But the [rebreaking] of my jaw wasn’t met.” Id. at 9.

Plaintiff states that he is in pain. He seeks $15,000 in damages. Id. at 8.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal on initial review because he has not established

the liability of Defendant Centurion Dental, a corporation, for the alleged deliberate indifference.

“A corporation acting under color of state law cannot be liable on a respondeat superior theory.”

Smith v. Insley’s Inc., 499 F.3d 875, 880 (8th Cir. 2007). Rather, to support a claim against such

a corporation, 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

Stearns v. Inmate Servs. Corp., 957 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining that the “proper test”

for determining whether a corporation acting under color of state law is liable under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 “is whether there is a policy, custom, or action by those who represent . . . official policy

that inflicts injury actionable under § 1983”). Plaintiff has not alleged his constitutional violations

resulted from any official policy, unofficial custom, or failure to train on the part of Centurion

Dental. Therefore he cannot establish any liability on the part of Defendant Centurion Dental, and

his claims are subject to dismissal.

Moreover, Plaintiff has not alleged any individual dentists, specialists, or dental care

providers exhibited deliberate indifference toward him. To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim

of deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must prove that he suffered from an objectively serious

medical need, and that the prison officials actually knew of and disregarded that need. Roberts v.

provider’s actions were “so inappropriate as to evidence intentional maltreatment or a refusal to

provide essential care.” Jackson v. Buckman, 756 F.3d 1060, 1066 (8th Cir. 2014). To that end,

“deliberate indifference requires a highly culpable state of mind approaching actual intent.”

Kulkay v. Roy, 847 F.3d 637, 643 (8th Cir. 2017). Mere negligence or inadvertence does not rise

to the level of deliberate indifference. Id.; see also Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488,

499 (8th Cir. 2008) (stating that medical malpractice is not actionable under the Eighth

Amendment).

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has had recurrent dental problems that were addressed both

by PCC and SECC in-house and by specialists. At the time he filed his complaint, many of his

dental issues “had gotten taken care of . . . the issue was taken care of the remov[al] of the four

teeth been pulled.” Doc. 6 at 5. But, Plaintiff states that he still suffers from pain and states that

he was told, presumably by a dental care provider, that his jaw needed to be rebroken. His mouth

hurts and it is hard for him to eat. Id. Also, he needs a replacement fitting for his partial dentures

lost by a SECC sergeant. These current complaints might form the basis of a constitutional claim,

but Plaintiff has not alleged any specific treatment provider has been deliberately indifferent to his

dental needs. Nor has he alleged that his requests have gone unanswered—he alleges only that he

is still in pain and believes his jaw needs to be rebroken. Because his allegations are serious,

however, and because he is proceeding as a self-represented litigant, the Court will allow him to

amend his complaint in accordance with the instructions set forth below.

Instructions for Amended Complaint

Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint on the enclosed form in accordance with the

following instructions:

1. Caption. In the “Caption” section, Plaintiff must:

• List the full names of all individuals or entities he seeks to sue. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the parties[.]”).

2. Statement of Claim. The “Statement of Claim” section must include:

• A short and plain statement of the factual allegations supporting each claim. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

• Separate, numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph addressing a single set of

circumstances. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

• A clear explanation of how each defendant’s actions or omissions violated

Plaintiff’s rights. See Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843,

848 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that the essential function of a complaint “is to give

the opposing party fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim”).

• Facts establishing each defendant’s personal involvement in the alleged violations.

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”).

• Specific factual allegations, rather than conclusory statements or formulaic

recitations of legal elements. See Neubauer v. FedEx Corp., 849 F.3d 400, 404

(8th Cir. 2017) (“A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or formulaic

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint

suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.”)

(citation and quotation marks omitted).

capacity, official capacity, or both. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of certain claims.

See Baker v. Chisom, 501 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2007).

4. Joinder. If Plaintiff names multiple defendants, he may only assert claims that (1)

arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, and (2) involve a common question of law or fact.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Unrelated claims against different defendants must be filed as

separate lawsuits. However, if Plaintiff names only a single defendant, he may assert as many

claims as he has against that defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a).

5. Effect. The amended complaint will completely replace the original complaint.

Any claims 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).

6. Signature. Plaintiff must fully complete and sign the amended complaint in

compliance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Motion to Appoint Counsel

Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel in this matter. Civil litigants do not have a

constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Watson v. Moss, 619 F.2d 775, 776 (8th Cir.

1980); Stevens v. Redwing, 142 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (stating that “[a] pro se litigant has

no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case”). Rather, a district

court may appoint counsel in a civil case if the court is “convinced that an indigent plaintiff has

stated a non-frivolous claim . . . and where the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well

as the court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850

(8th Cir. 2018). When determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant, a court

considers factors such as the complexity of the case, the ability of the pro se litigant to investigate

or her claim. Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006).

Having considered these factors, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not

warranted at this time. Plaintiff has demonstrated up to this point that he can adequately present

his claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case appear to

be complex. The Court may entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case

progresses.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff’s application to proceed in district

court without prepaying fees or costs. On initial review, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant

Centurion Dental are subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. But because Plaintiff is self-

represented and has makes serious allegations, the Court will allow him to amend. If Plaintiff

seeks to continue this action, he shall file an amended complaint on the Court-provided form in

accordance with the instructions above.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in the district court

without prepaying fees and costs is GRANTED. (Doc. 2)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must pay an initial partial filing fee of $1.80

within 30 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to

“Clerk, United States District Court,” and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison

registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) the statement that the remittance is for an original

proceeding.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED

without prejudice. (Doc. 4)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the

Court’s prisoner civil rights complaint form.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff seeks to continue this action he shall file an

amended complaint on the prisoner civil rights complaint form in accordance with the instructions

set forth above and return it to the Court within 21 days of the date of this Order.

Failure to comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice

and without further notice to Plaintiff.

Dated this 16th day of July, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-9-