Lyons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

NORTHERN DIVISION

BUDDY R. LYONS, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) No. 2:25-cv-00093-SEP

)

S. CRAWFORD, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Buddy Lyons, Jr.’s Application for Leave to

Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Docs. [2],

[3]. For the reasons set forth below, the Application is granted, and the Motion for Appointment

of Counsel is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff will be required to file an amended complaint

on a Court-provided Prisoner Complaint form1 within 30 days of the date of this Order.

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.

1 Though Plaintiff is not incarcerated, the Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint Form includes information

helpful for suing government officials, including what capacity a plaintiff is suing under.

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”). 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 Buddy Lyons, Jr. filed this action against Kirksville Missouri Police Deputies S.

Crawford, M. Maggart, and L. Backmen, and the Kirksville Police Department, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. [1] at 1. Plaintiff claims that his civil rights were violated on March 21,

2025, and April 21, 2025, when Kirksville police officers subjected him to false arrest. Doc. [1]

at 5. Plaintiff also claims that Defendants “failed to reconize [sic] RSMO 302.600 Missouri

Driver’s license compact.” See id. He alleges that the Chief of Police discarded his “citizenship

status correction and fee schedule” and pursued “false claims and arrest.”2 Id. at 5.

2 Based on the attachment to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff may be attempting to challenge Missouri state

laws that regulate driver’s licenses, vehicle registration, and the operation of motor vehicles on Missouri

highways. See Doc. [1-3] at 1-10. Plaintiff’s arguments are of the kind often filed by “sovereign

citizens,” who generally believe that they are exempt from federal and state laws. Waters v. Madson, 921

F.3d 725, 732 n.4 (8th Cir. 2019); see also United States v. Barraza, 982 F.3d 1106, 1113 n.3 (8th Cir.

2020). Courts have routinely denied sovereign citizen claims based on an unfettered right to travel. See,

e.g., Hyppolite v. Broward Sheriff’s Off., No. 16-6125, 2017 WL 2691978 (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2017)

(rejecting argument of plaintiff pulled over for speeding who claimed that as a “traveler” he did not need

a driver’s license); Secor v. Okla., No. 16-CV-85, 2016 WL 6156316 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 21, 2016)

(dismissed sovereign citizen plaintiff’s suit for failure to state a claim that included allegations that he was

not required to have a driver’s license and automobile insurance); Matthews v. United States, No.

3:16cv00148, 2016 WL 2624974 (S.D. Ohio May 9, 2016) (dismissing “sovereign freeman” plaintiff’s

On January 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Complaint, see Doc. [4], seeking

waiver of the filing fee. Doc. [4] at 1. Attached to his Supplemental Complaint was a two-page

typewritten “Petition for Damages” against the Kirksville Police Department. Doc. [4] at 2-3. In

his “Petition for Damages,” Plaintiff invokes the Missouri Tort Claims Act and the Missouri Tort

Victims’ Compensation Fund. Id. It is unclear if Plaintiff wants the “Petition for Damages” to

supersede his prior Complaint or to supplement to his claims.3

Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of four million dollars. Doc. [1] at 5.

DISCUSSION

Even with the benefit of a liberal construction, the Complaint in its current form cannot

survive initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). But considering Plaintiff’s pro se status, the

Court will give him the opportunity to amend.

First, Plaintiff names as a Defendant the Kirksville Police Department. But his claims

against the Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must fail, as the Kirksville Police Department is

not a suable entity under § 1983. See Owens v. Scott Cty. Jail, 328 F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir.

2003) (“jails are not legal entities amenable to suit”); De La Garza v. Kandiyohi Cty. Jail, 18 Fed.

Appx. 436, 437 (8th Cir. 2001) (county jail and sheriff’s department are not suable entities).

Plaintiff also has not properly stated a claim for false arrest against the City of Kirksville.

To hold a municipality liable for a § 1983 violation, a plaintiff must allege that the municipality

has committed a constitutional violation through “a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or

decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.” Monell v. Dept. of Soc.

Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks any such

allegations. Therefore, he does not state a Monell claim against the City.

Finally, Plaintiff has not included any personal allegations against Defendants S.

Crawford, M. Maggart, or L. Backmen in his Complaint. To state a claim against a defendant

under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege how that defendant was personally involved in or directly

claims that arose from a traffic stop resulting in multiple citations including driving with an expired

driver’s license).

3 Plaintiff may not amend his pleading through interlineation or supplementation. See Popoalii v. Corr.

Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (finding it appropriate to deny leave to amend a complaint

when a proposed amendment was not submitted with the motion); Clayton v. White Hall Sch. Dist., 778

F.2d 457, 460 (8th Cir. 1985) (“[I]n order to preserve the right to amend the complaint, a party must

submit the proposed amendment along with its motion.”).

responsible for the deprivation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Martin v. Sargent, 780

F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985).

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AMENDING THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff will have an opportunity to amend his Complaint on a Court-provided Prisoner

Complaint form. An amended complaint will entirely replace the original Complaint. See In re

Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005).

Any claims that are not realleged in an amended complaint will be deemed abandoned. See id.

Plaintiff must type or neatly print his amended complaint on the Court’s Prisoner Civil Rights

Complaint Form, which will be provided to him. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.06(A).

In the “Caption” section of the form, Plaintiff should write the name of any Defendant he

intends to sue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Plaintiff must specify whether he sues each Defendant

in his official or individual capacity. Failure to sue a Defendant in his or her individual capacity

may result in the dismissal of that Defendant.

In the “Statement of Claim” section, Plaintiff should begin by writing a Defendant’s

name. Then, in separate, numbered paragraphs under that name, Plaintiff should: (1) set forth

the factual allegations supporting his claim against that Defendant, and (2) state what

constitutional or federal statutory right(s) that Defendant violated. If Plaintiff is suing more than

one Defendant, he should proceed similarly with each one, separately writing each Defendant’s

name and, under that name, in numbered paragraphs, the allegations specific to that Defendant

and the right(s) that Defendant violated. Plaintiff should avoid including unnecessary detail in

his amended complaint. Plaintiff will have the opportunity to present evidence and argument in

support of his claims if the case proceeds to the next stage of litigation.

If Plaintiff names a single Defendant, he may set forth as many claims as he has against

that Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If Plaintiff names more than one Defendant, he may

include only claims that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

20(a)(2). Plaintiff may file a separate civil action to assert any unrelated claims. Plaintiff must

allege facts explaining how each Defendant was personally involved in or directly responsible

for harming him. See Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff must

explain the role of each Defendant sufficiently to provide notice to the Defendant regarding what

he is accused of doing or failing to do. See Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d

843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hopkins v. Saunders, 199 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir. 1999)) (“The

essential function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to give the

opposing party ‘fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim, and a general

indication of the type of litigation involved.’”).

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff has also moved for appointment of counsel. Doc. [2]. That motion is denied

without prejudice. An indigent litigant has “neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to

appointed counsel in civil cases.” Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018) (citing

Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006)). A district court may appoint

counsel in a civil case if it 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.’” Id. (citation omitted) (quoting Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d

1319, 1322 (8th Cir. 1986)) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)). When determining whether to appoint

counsel for an indigent litigant, a court considers such factors as “the factual complexity of the

issues, the ability of the indigent person to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting

testimony, the ability of the indigent person to present the claims, and the complexity of the legal

arguments.” Id. (quoting Phillips, 437 F.3d at 794).

On review of the factors, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted at

this time. Plaintiff has yet to file a Complaint that survives initial review. There is no indication

that Plaintiff is unable to present his claims, and neither the factual nor the legal issues in this

case appear to be especially complex. Because the Court recognizes that circumstances may

change, the motion is denied without prejudice, meaning that the Court might reconsider

appointing counsel if it becomes appropriate as the case progresses.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. [3], is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall mail to Plaintiff a blank Prisoner Civil

Complaint form. Plaintiff may request additional forms as needed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on the

Court-provided form in accordance with the instructions set forth above within 30 days of the

date of this Order. Any amended complaint will replace the original Complaint and will be the

only pleading that this Court will review.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Doc.

[2], is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with this Order

may result in dismissal of this action, without prejudice and without further notice.

Dated this 10th day of August, 2026.

SARAH E. PITLYK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE