Keel v. St. Louis County
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2 ] is GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 09/15/2015. (CLK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
STEVEN T. KEEL,
ST. LOUIS COUNTY,
No. 4:15CV1409 SPM
OPINION, 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.
Plaintiff, a resident at the Fulton State Hospital, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against St. Louis County. For his “Statement of Claim,” plaintiff merely states, “I will
[sic] like to tell my story.”
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require litigants to formulate their pleadings in an
organized and comprehensible manner. Even pro se litigants are obligated to plead specific facts
as to each named defendant and must abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; however,
plaintiff has failed to do so in this case. See U.S. v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (complaint should contain short and plain statement of claims);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e)(2) (each claim shall be simple, concise, and direct); Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b) (parties
are to separate their claims within their pleadings Athe contents of which shall be limited as far as
practicable to a single set of circumstances@). Although the Court is to give plaintiff=s complaint
the benefit of a liberal construction, the Court will not create facts or claims that have not been
alleged. Plaintiff is required to set out not only his alleged claims in a simple, concise, and direct
manner, but also the facts supporting his claims as to each named defendant. Because plaintiff
has failed to do so, and the complaint lacks any allegations against St. Louis County, the Court
will dismiss this action as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim or cause of action. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Additionally, the complaint is identical to one plaintiff filed on August 26, 2015, which
the Court summarily dismissed.
Keel v. St. Louis County, 4:15CV1325 SPM (ED. Mo.).
Therefore, it is barred by res judicata as well.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 15th day of September, 2015.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?