Mohammed Bey v. Slay et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion 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 instr uctions set forth herein within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this 1 The failure to sue a defendant in his or her individual capacity may result in the dismissal of that defendant. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail to Plaintiff a blank Civil Rights Complaint form. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Memorandum and Order, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Cohen on 3/20/2017. (Order and forms mailed to plaintiff on 3/21/2017.)(CBL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ABDUL AYAT MOHAMMED BEY,
a/k/a Ronald B. Britt-Bey,
FRANCIS SLAY, et al.,
No. 4:17cv00965 PLC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis.
Having reviewed the financial information submitted in support of the motion, the Court
determines that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee. The motion will therefore be granted. In
addition, Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to submit an amended complaint.
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 679.
When reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give it the benefit
of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, this does not
mean that pro se complaints may be merely conclusory. 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”). 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).
It should be noted that Plaintiff is a very frequent pro se and in forma pauperis litigator in
this Court. In the instant case, the complaint is defective for several reasons. First, it was not
drafted using the Court’s form. See E.D. Mo. Local Rule 2.06(A). It is far too long, and largely
illegible. It fails to conform with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and it
purports to bring multiple unrelated claims against not one but eight defendants, an
impermissible pleading practice.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will give him an opportunity to file an
amended complaint. In so doing, Plaintiff should select the transaction or occurrence he wishes
to pursue, and limit the facts and allegations to the defendant(s) involved therein. Plaintiff
should only include claims that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or simply put,
claims that are related to each other. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Alternatively, Plaintiff may
choose a single defendant and set forth as many claims as he has against that defendant. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 18(a).
Plaintiff must prepare the amended complaint using a Court-provided form, and must
follow Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the “Caption” section of the
form complaint, Plaintiff should write the name of the defendant(s) he wishes to sue. In the
“Statement of Claim” section, Plaintiff should begin by writing the defendant’s name.
separate, numbered paragraphs under that name, Plaintiff should: (1) set forth the factual
allegations supporting his claim against that defendant; (2) state what constitutional or federal
statutory right(s) that defendant violated; and (3) state whether the defendant is being sued in
his/her individual capacity or official capacity. 1 If Plaintiff is suing more than one defendant, he
shall proceed in this manner with each one, separately writing each individual defendant’s name
and, under that name, in numbered paragraphs, the allegations specific to that particular
defendant and the right(s) that defendant violated.
Plaintiff shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiff is warned that the filing of the amended complaint completely replaces the
original. Claims that are not re-alleged are deemed abandoned. E.g., In re Wireless Telephone
Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion 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 within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this
The failure to sue a defendant in his or her individual capacity may result in the dismissal of that defendant.
Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail to Plaintiff a blank
Civil Rights Complaint form.
If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Memorandum and Order, the Court will
dismiss this action without prejudice and without further notice.
PATRICIA L. COHEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 20th day of March, 2017.
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?