Davis v. Lunatto et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall submit an amended complaint in accordance with the instructions set forth here in no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order (Amended Pleadings due by 3/15/2017). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail to plaintiff a copy of the Court's prisoner civil rights complaint f orm, and a copy of this Court's civil complaint form. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Order, the Court may dismiss this action, without prejudice and without further notice. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 2/22/17. (CAR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
UNKNOWN LUNATTO, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Coryesha Davis for
leave to proceed in this civil action in forma pauperis.
(Docket No. 2).
consideration of the financial information provided with the application, the Court finds
that plaintiff is financially unable to pay the filing fee, and will therefore grant the
motion. In addition, the Court will give plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended
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, 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. Determining whether a
complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the
reviewing court to, inter alia, draw upon judicial experience and common sense. Id. at
When reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the Court must accept as
true the allegations contained in the complaint, and give it the benefit of a liberal
construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
However, even pro se
complaints are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of
law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980); see also Stone v. Harry,
364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (federal courts are not required to “assume facts
that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a
stronger complaint”). The tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true
is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In addition, affording a pro
se complaint the benefit of a liberal construction does not mean that procedural rules in
ordinary civil litigation must be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who
proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. U.S., 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
Plaintiff seeks monetary relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that
she is going through a “medical situation and the cop mace me in my eye.” (Docket No.
1 at 3). Plaintiff then alleges that upon arrival at a jail, “more cop” verbally mistreated
her in an elevator and “the cops” tased her. Id. Plaintiff indicates that the wrongs alleged
in the complaint are continuing to occur at the present time.
In setting forth her claims for relief, plaintiff fails to identify any defendant by
name or set forth specific facts demonstrating any plausible claim for relief. Because
plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, the Court will allow her the
opportunity to submit an amended complaint. Plaintiff is required to use a court-provided
form, and she is required to follow Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Plaintiff must type or legibly print the amended complaint. In the “Caption”
section, plaintiff shall list the name of the defendant(s) she wishes to sue.
“Statement of Claim” section, plaintiff shall start by typing or legibly printing the
defendant’s name and title, and under the name and title, she shall set forth in separate
numbered paragraphs the allegations supporting her claim(s) as to that particular
defendant, as well as the right(s) that she claims that particular defendant violated. 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. Plaintiff must specify
the capacity in which she intends to sue each defendant. Plaintiff’s failure to sue a
defendant in his or her individual capacity may result in the dismissal of that defendant.
Because the Court is allowing plaintiff to file an amended complaint, it will take no
action as to the named defendants at this time.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall submit an amended complaint
in accordance with the instructions set forth herein no later than twenty-one (21) days
from the date of this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail to plaintiff a
copy of the Court’s prisoner civil rights complaint form, and a copy of this Court’s civil
If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Order, the Court may dismiss this
action, without prejudice and without further notice.
Dated this 22nd day of February, 2017.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
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?