Owen v. Lisenbe et al
Filing
11
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 plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1.00 within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to "Clerk, United States District Court," and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the rem ittance is for an original proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a prisoner civil rights complaint form. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must submit an amended complaint within twenty-one days of the da te of this Order. If plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court will dismiss this action without further proceedings (copy of order and civil rights complaint form mailed to plaintiff). Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 8/21/17. (KXS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RONNIE LEE OWEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD LISENBE, et al.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:17CV1547 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed plaintiff’s financial information, the Court assesses a partial
initial filing fee of $1.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Additionally, plaintiff must submit an
amended complaint.
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, 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 draw on its judicial experience and
common sense. Id. at 679.
When reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court accepts the well-pled
facts as true. Furthermore, the Court liberally construes the allegations.
The Complaint
Plaintiff is detained at Phelps County Jail, which is overcrowded. As a result of the
overcrowding, there are no religious services, there are no opportunities for exercise, and the
conditions are unsanitary. He has gotten sick as a result.
Discussion
There are problems with the complaint. It does not comply with Rules 8 or 10 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) requires that the complaint contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that [plaintiff] is entitled to relief . . .” And Rule 10(b)
requires a plaintiff to “state [his] claims . . . in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as
practicable to a single set of circumstances.”
Moreover, it contains legal arguments and conclusions. Many of the allegations do not
directly pertain to the plaintiff or the named defendants. And it is too long and repetitive.
Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will allow him to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiff is warned that the filing of an amended complaint replaces the original
complaint, and so he must include each and every one of his claims in the amended complaint.
E.g., In re 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.
Plaintiff must allege how each and every
defendant is directly responsible for the alleged harm. In order to sue defendants in their
2
individual capacities, plaintiff must specifically say so in the complaint. If plaintiff fails to sue
defendants in their individual capacities, this action may be subject to dismissal.
The amended complaint must also comply with the requirements of Rules 8 and 10. It
must be plain and short. And it must set out the claims in numbered paragraphs. If plaintiff fails
to properly amend his complaint, the Court will dismiss this action without further proceedings.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1.00 within
twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance
payable to “Clerk, United States District Court,” and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his
prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for an original
proceeding. 1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a prisoner civil
rights complaint form.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must submit an amended complaint within
twenty-one days of the date of this Order.
1
Prisoners must pay the full amount of the $350 filing fee. After payment of the initial partial
filing fee, the prisoner is required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding
month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account. The agency having custody of the prisoner
will deduct the payments and forward them to the Court each time the amount in the account
exceeds $10. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
3
If plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court will dismiss this action without
further proceedings.
Dated this 21st day of August, 2017
___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?