Andrews v. Schafer et al

Filing 12

OPINION,MEMORANDUM AND ORDER-- HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. # 2 ] is GRANTED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for admission pro hac vice ofplaintiff's at torney, Mr. Beau B. Brindley, [Doc. # 10 ] is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to issue upon the first amended complaint as to defendants Keith Schafer, Felix T.Vincenz, Mark Stringer, Laurent D. Javois, Sy lvia P.Adams,H.A. Mannich, and Roy Wilson in their individual capacities. FURTHER ORDERED that, as to defendants "as-of-yet Unknown Employees," the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue, because the amended complaint is le gally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate Order of Partial Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandumand Order. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 01/30/2014. (CLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

DWAYNE ANDREWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEITH SCHAFER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-2045-HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the application of Dwayne Andrews for
leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee [Doc. #2].
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Upon consideration of the financial information provided
with the application, the Court finds that plaintiff is financially unable to pay any
portion of the filing fee. Therefore, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Furthermore, having reviewed the
amended complaint [Doc. #11] and as set forth below, the Court will (1) order the
Clerk to issue process as to defendants Keith Schafer, Felix T. Vincenz, Mark
Stringer, Laurent D. Javois, Sylvia P. Adams, H.A. Mannich, and Roy Wilson in their
individual capacities; (2) dismiss this action without prejudice as to defendants “asof-yet Unknown Employees”; and (3) grant plaintiff’s attorney’s motion for

admission pro hac vice [Doc. #10].
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may dismiss a complaint filed
in forma pauperis at any time if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief. An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,570 (2007).
In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give the
complaint the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff,
unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32
(1992).
The Amended Complaint
Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. The named defendants are the following current or former employees of the
Missouri Department of Mental Health: Keith Schafer, Felix T. Vincenz, Mark
Stringer, Laurent D. Javois, Sylvia P. Adams, H.A. Mannich, Roy Wilson, and “as-ofyet Unknown Employees.” Plaintiff allege that he was committed to the care and
2

custody of the State of Missouri in 2005, after being found not guilty by reason of
insanity or mental defect. Plaintiff further states that “by 2010,” an independent
psychiatrist examined him and found no continuing evidence of mental illness or
defect; however, defendants unconstitutionally refused to release plaintiff for two
more years. Plaintiff is suing defendants in their individual capacities for his
allegedly unlawful and unjustified detention.
Discussion
Plaintiff's claims against defendants Keith Schafer, Felix T. Vincenz, Mark
Stringer, Laurent D. Javois, Sylvia P. Adams, H.A. Mannich, and Roy Wilson in their
individual capacities are sufficient to proceed at this time.
The amended complaint is, however, legally frivolous as to the “Unknown
Employees.” In general, fictitious parties may not be named as defendants in a civil
action. Phelps v. United States, 15 F.3d 735, 739 (8th Cir. 1994). An action may
proceed against a party whose name is unknown, however, if the complaint makes
allegations sufficiently specific to permit the identity of the party to be ascertained
after reasonable discovery. Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 1985). In the
case at hand, the amended complaint does not contain specific allegations that would
permit the identity of the unknown employees to be ascertained after reasonable
discovery. These particular "John Doe" defendants are both unidentified and
3

indeterminate in number. This is not permissible. See Estate of Rosenberg v.
Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995) (suit naming "various other John Does to be
named when identified" not permissible). At this time, therefore, the Court will
dismiss defendants Unknown Employees without prejudice.
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. # 2] is GRANTED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for admission pro hac vice of
plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. Beau B. Brindley, [Doc. #10] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause
process to issue upon the first amended complaint as to defendants Keith Schafer,
Felix T. Vincenz, Mark Stringer, Laurent D. Javois, Sylvia P. Adams, H.A. Mannich,
and Roy Wilson in their individual capacities.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to defendants “as-of-yet Unknown
Employees,” the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue, because the
amended complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

4

A separate Order of Partial Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and
Order.
Dated this 30th day of January, 2014.

____________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5