Dovin v. Reddy et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -.....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. [Doc. 2] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form. IT I S FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must file an amended complaint by October 5, 2015. If plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court will summarily dismiss this case without prejudice and without further notice to plaintiff. ( Response to Court due by 10/5/2015.). Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 9/3/2015. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JONATHAN PAUL DOVIN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DR. VERRA REDDY, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:15-CV-1259 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The motion is granted.
Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a complaint must plead more than “legal conclusions”
and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere
conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

A plaintiff must

demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.”
Id. at 679. “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.
The Complaint
Plaintiff is civilly committed in the St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center. During
the time period relevant to the complaint, he was confined in the Southeast Missouri Mental

Health Center, which is a state institution. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Reddy was his treating
psychiatrist, and Dr. Englehart was the acting Medical Director of the institution.
Plaintiff alleges that in February 2013 Dr. Reddy ordered that he be chemically
restrained. Plaintiff says this “was outside of the due process and administered every two weeks
by Jamie Rodgers Stautler.” Complaint at 5. Plaintiff claims he was forcibly medicated for six
months.
Plaintiff alleges that he appealed the issue of chemical restraint to Dr. Englehart for “a
second opinion evaluation” but that Englehart “with the treating physician force medicated”
plaintiff for six months. Complaint at 6.
Discussion
The complaint is silent as to whether defendants are being sued in their official or
individual capacities. Where a “complaint is silent about the capacity in which [plaintiff] is
suing defendant, [a district court must] interpret the complaint as including only official-capacity
claims.” Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995); Nix v.
Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1989). Naming a government official in his or her official
capacity is the equivalent of naming the government entity that employs the official, in this case
the State of Missouri. Will v. Michigan Dep=t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). “[N]either
a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Id. As a
result, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will allow him to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of this Order to do so. Plaintiff is warned
that the filing of an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, and so
he must include each and every one of his claims in the amended complaint. E.g., In re

2

Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005).
Any claims from the original complaint that are not included in the amended complaint
will be considered abandoned. Id. In order to sue defendants in their individual capacities,
plaintiff must specifically say so in the complaint. If plaintiff fails to file an amended
complaint within thirty days, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. [Doc. 2]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a civil rights
complaint form.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must file an amended complaint by October
5, 2015. If plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court will summarily dismiss this case
without prejudice and without further notice to plaintiff.

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this

3rd

day of September, 2015.

3