Young v. American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall provide to plaintiff, along with a copy of this Order, a blank complaint form for the filing of a prisoner civil rights complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, in accordance with the instructions set forth above, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint or fails to comply with t he instructions set forth above relating to the filing of the second amended complaint, the Court shall dismiss this action without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon the filing of the amended complaint, it will be subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (copy of order and form prisoner civil rights complaint mailed to plaintiff). Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 6/19/17. (KXS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DARNELL YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIME LAB
DIRECTORS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-1643 NAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon transfer of the action from the United States District
Court of the Eastern District of North Carolina. Plaintiff, an inmate at the Eastern Reception,
Diagnostic and Correctional Center (“ERDCC”) brought the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights.
Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the Eastern District of North
Carolina, and his case was reviewed for frivolousness pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, on June 8, 2017. In its initial review, the Court dismissed several claims
from plaintiff’s complaint, as well as one of the defendants from this action. However, in
addition to transferring the matter to this Court, the Eastern District of North Carolina found that
plaintiff’s allegations under the Supreme Court case of Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S.Ct.1289 (2011),
may be able to state a claim for relief. In order to pursue his procedural due process claims under
Skinner, plaintiff must amend his complaint to name a proper defendant. Therefore, the Court
will require plaintiff to amend his complaint on a court-provided form.

1

Discussion
On March 7, 2011, the United States Supreme Court clarified that a § 1983 plaintiff could
bring a procedural due process claim where state law provided for post-conviction DNA testing
as a matter of right. Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S.Ct. 1289 (2011). The Skinner decision appears to
support plaintiff's argument that he may be able to assert a procedural due process claim in this
action relating to DNA evidence available to him after his state criminal trial. 1
Because defendants in Missouri have a right to post-conviction DNA testing, plaintiff
could assert a § 1983 claim based on a denial of procedural due process. See Belcher v. State,
299 S.W.3d 294 (Mo. 2009) (construing Mo.Rev.Stat. § 547.035 as providing a right to and
liberty interest in post-conviction DNA testing).
However, plaintiff=s allegations are somewhat disjointed and it is unclear whether the
“American Society of Crime Lab Directors” is the proper defendant in this action for such a
procedural due process claim. Thus, the Court believes that plaintiff should amend his complaint
to identify his claims under Skinner, as well as, the proper defendant in this action.
Accordingly, plaintiff will be required to file an amended complaint, on a court-form,
containing all of his Skinner claims, in addition to naming the proper defendant in this action. All
claims in this action must be included in one, centralized complaint form. Plaintiff must follow
the Court=s instructions relating to the filing of his amended complaint, as set forth below, or he
will face dismissal of his action, without prejudice.
Plaintiff is required to submit his amended complaint on a court-provided form, and it must
comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) requires that a
1

Plaintiff appears to be asserting in his complaint that both the prosecution and the police
department had evidence that they did not turn over until after his trial that should have been made
available to him for DNA testing.
2

complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief and a demand for the relief sought. And Rule 10(b) requires that a party must state its claims
or defenses in separately numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of
circumstances.
Plaintiff must also clearly state the defendant which he is pursuing allegations against, and
he must articulate the factual circumstances surrounding that defendant’s alleged wrongful
conduct.
Plaintiff=s failure to make specific and actionable allegations against the defendant will
result in the defendant’s dismissal from this case. 2 Plaintiff should also articulate in what
capacity he is bringing claims against the named defendant, whether it is in its official or
individual capacity, or both. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91
(1978).
Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file his amended
complaint. Plaintiff is warned that the filing of the amended complaint completely replaces the
original complaint, and 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). If plaintiff
fails to file his amended complaint within thirty (30) days, the Court will dismiss this action
without prejudice.
2

Plaintiff should be aware that departments or subdivisions of local government are not normally
suable entities. See Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992)
(departments or subdivisions of local government are Anot juridical entities suable as such.@).
Similarly, plaintiff should understand that liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and
direct responsibility for, the alleged deprivation of rights.@ Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203,
1208 (8th Cir. 1990); see also 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 plaintiff).
3

After the filing of plaintiff=s amended complaint, the Court will review the amended
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for frivolousness, maliciousness and/or failure to state a
claim. A claim and/or defendant must survive § 1915 review in order for plaintiff to proceed on
those claims in this lawsuit.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall provide to plaintiff, along with
a copy of this Order, a blank complaint form for the filing of a prisoner civil rights complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, in
accordance with the instructions set forth above, no later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint
or fails to comply with the instructions set forth above relating to the filing of the second
amended complaint, the Court shall dismiss this action without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon the filing of the amended complaint, it will be
subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Dated this 19th day of June, 2017.

/s/ Nannette A. Baker
NANNETTE A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4