Johnson v. Marin-Forman et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be entered here with. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 3) is DENIED as moot. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. 3 2 Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 6/28/17. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
MARTY MARIN-FORMAN, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Rayfield Johnson, a detainee
at the Sexual Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services (“SORTS”) facility, for leave to
commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee. (Docket No. 2). Having reviewed
the financial information provided with the motion, the Court determines that plaintiff is
financially unable to pay any portion of the filing fee. The motion will therefore be granted. In
addition, the Court will dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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 conducting initial review pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give the
complaint 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).
Plaintiff brings this action against Marty Marin-Forman, John Lyskowski, Charlene
Gilmore, Peggy Reed-Lohmeyer, and Jeffrey S. Kline. He sues each defendant in an individual
and official capacity. Plaintiff states that the defendants violated his civil rights by conspiring to
put him in the Missouri Sex Offender Treatment Program, make false statements against him,
illegally discharge him from Fulton State Hospital with a “proper psychiatrist,” and prevent him
access to news media outlets to tell his story. (Docket No. 1 at 7). He seeks monetary relief, and
also asks the Court to intervene in some manner in a state court case.
The complaint will be dismissed as factually frivolous under Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). In addition, plaintiff’s official capacity claims are subject to dismissal.
See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Plaintiff’s individual
capacity claims will be dismissed because he fails to allege how each defendant was directly
involved in or personally responsible for any alleged constitutional violations. See Madewell v.
Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990) (liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to,
and direct responsibility for, the alleged deprivation of rights); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334,
1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (claim not cognizable under § 1983 where plaintiff fails to allege defendant
was personally involved in or directly responsible for incidents that injured him). Finally, the
complaint does not state a claim for conspiracy under § 1983 because plaintiff has not plead
factual detail indicating that any defendants conspired either together or with others to deprive
him of any constitutional rights. See Burton v. St. Louis Bd. of Police Com’rs., 731 F.3d 784,
798 (8th Cir. 2013).
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 this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 3)
is DENIED as moot.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
Dated this ___28th_ day of June, 2017.
\s\ Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
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?