Roland v. The County of St. Charles, Missouri et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall submit an amended complaint, in accordance with the instructions set forth in this Mem orandum and Order, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall mail to plaintiff a blank form for the filing of a civil rights complaint. Plaintiff may request additional for ms from the Clerk, as needed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. 3 ] is DENIED, without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on August 4, 2015. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Right Complaint Form)(BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LEO S. ROLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.

THE COUNTY OF ST. CHARLES,
MISSOURl, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15-CV-966-RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Leo S. Roland for leave to
commence this action without payment of the required filing fee [Doc. 2].

After

reviewing plaintiffs financial information, the Court will grant the motion.
Additionally, the Court will order plaintiff to file an amended complaint and will
dismiss, without prejudice, his request for appointment of counsel.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a complaint
filed in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
either law or fact.''

An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis in

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); Denton v.

Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992).

An action is malicious if it is

undertaken for the purpose of harassing the named defendants and not for the
purpose of vindicating a cognizable right.

Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458,

461-63 (E.D.N.C. 1987), aff'd 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987).

A complaint fails

to state a claim if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974
(2007).
The Complaint

Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against The
County of St. Charles, Missouri, and Nathan Baethke (Correctional Officer, St.
Charles County Jail).
Plaintiffs allegations anse out of several different occurrences that took
place after he was arrested in 2014.

For example, plaintiff complains that he was

held in the St. Charles County Jail on state criminal charges for fourteen months,
and he seems to be complaining that he was maliciously prosecuted prior to the
criminal charges being dismissed.

In addition, plaintiff alleges that, after he was

incarcerated in the St. Charles County Jail, he submitted a "Concern Form"
regarding excessive noise that a couple of other inmates were making.

Plaintiff

claims that defendant Nathan Baethke showed the "Concern Form" to the very
2

inmates plaintiff had complained about, thus labeling plaintiff a "snitch."
Plaintiff claims this placed his life and safety in danger.

These separate claims

bear no relationship to each other.
Discussion

Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:
A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim,
counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join,
either as independent or as alternate claims, as many
claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has
against an opposing party.
As such, multiple claims against a single party are valid.

George v. Smith, 507

F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
The instant action, however, presents a case involving multiple claims
against, not one, but two defendants.

Such pleading practices are not allowed,

especially in prisoner actions where there could be an incentive to avoid paying
separate filing fees. See id. (district court should question j oinder of defendants and
claims in prisoner cases).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) is controlling

and provides:
Persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants
if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly,
severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising
out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law
or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.
3

Thus, a plaintiff cannot normally seek to join in one lawsuit a multitude of
claims against different defendants, relating to events arising out of a series of
different occurrences or transactions. In other words, "Claim A against Defendant
1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2."

George v.

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). "Unrelated claims against different

defendants belong in different suits, ... [in part] to ensure that prisoners pay the
required filing fees - for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of
frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the
required fees."

Id.

Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, the Court will
give him an opportunity to file an amended complaint in this action. In so doing,
plaintiff should

sel~ct

the transaction or occurrence he wishes to pursue, in

accordance with Rules 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and file
an amended complaint, limiting his facts and allegations to the defendant(s)
involved in said occurrence.

Plaintiff should only include in his amended

complaint those claims that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or
simply put, claims that have some relation to each other. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2).
Alternatively, plaintiff may choose to select one defendant and set forth as many
claims as he has against that single individual.
4

See F ed.R. Civ .P. 18(a).

Plaintiff is reminded that he is required to submit his amended complaint on a
court-provided form, and it must comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Specifically, in the "Caption" of the form complaint, plaintiff
shall set forth the name of each defendant he wishes to sue; and in the "Statement
of Claim," plaintiff shall start by typing the first defendant's name, and under that
name, he shall set forth in separate numbered paragraphs the allegations supporting
his claim(s) as to that particular defendant, as well as the right(s) that he claims
that particular defendant violated.

If plaintiff is suing more than one defendant,

he shall proceed in this manner with each of the named defendants, separately
setting forth each individual name and under that name, in numbered paragraphs,
the allegations specific to that particular defendant and the right( s) that he claims
that particular defendant violated.

Plaintiff is instructed not to attach any exhibits

to the amended complaint.
The amended complaint must contain short and plain statements showing
that plaintiff is entitled to relief, the allegations must be simple, concise, and direct,
and the numbered paragraphs must each be limited to a single set of circumstances.
If plaintiff needs more space, he may attach additional sheets of paper to the

amended complaint and identify them as part of the "Caption" or "Statement of
Claim."

Because the Court is allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint, it will
5

take no action as to the named defendants at this time.

Plaintiff is advised that

the amended complaint will replace the original complaint and will be the only
pleading this Court reviews. See, e.g., In re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost

Recovery Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005). Any and all claims
and parties not included in the amended complaint will be deemed
abandoned.
If plaintiff wishes to pursue additional claims against additional defendants,
and the claims to not arise from the same transaction or occurrence he has chosen
to advance in his amended complaint, he must file each such claim( s) on a separate
complaint form and either pay the entire filing fee or file a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.
Last, plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. 3], on the
ground that he cannot afford an attorney. "A pro se litigant has no statutory or
constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case." Stevens v. Redwing,
146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). When determining whether to appoint counsel
for an indigent litigant, the Court considers relevant factors, such as the complexity
of the case, the ability of the pro se litigant to investigate the facts, the existence of
conflicting testimony, and the ability of the prose litigant to present his or her claim.
Id.
6

After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel
is not warranted at this time. This case is neither factually nor legally complex, and
it is evident that plaintiff is able to present his claims. Consequently, the motion
will be denied at this time, without prejudice.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. 2] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall submit an amended
complaint, in accordance with

t~e

instructions set forth in this Memorandum and

Order, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall mail to plaintiff a blank
form for the filing of a civil rights complaint.

Plaintiff may request additional

forms from the Clerk, as needed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of
counsel [Doc. 3] is DENIED, without prejudice.
Dated this

'/.f/i.

day of

~

~~~

, 2015.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7