Davidson v. Southeast Mental Health Center 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 the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of 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. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 8/17/2017. (NEB)
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DEAN BRYAN DAVIDSON,
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI MENTAL
HEAL TH CENTER, et al. ,
No. 4: 17-cv-2076-RLW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Dean Bryan Davidson, a
detainee at the Southeast Missouri Mental Health Center, for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
in this civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S .C. § 1983. The Court has reviewed the financial
information submitted in support, and will grant the motion. In addition, the Court will dismiss
the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 1915(e).
Legal Standard on Initial Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed informa
pauperis if it is frivolous , malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A
complaint must contain "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face. " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
"A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded
factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged. " Id.
This Court is required to liberally construe a pro se complaint,
Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and must accept plaintiffs factual allegations as
true unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 ,
The Court is not required to "assume facts that are not alleged, just because an
additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint." Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d
912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004). Giving a prose complaint the benefit of a liberal construction does
not mean that the rules of ordinary civil litigation must be interpreted to excuse mistakes by
those who proceed prose . McNeil v. U. S., 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S .C. § 1983. Named as defendants are the
Southeast Missouri Mental Health Center, Denise Boyde, and Fulton State Hospital. Plaintiff
states that he sues all defendants in their official and individual capacities. Plaintiff alleges that
he is being wrongfully detained; that "staff' and "they" have opened and read his legal mail,
"practiced illegal authority over the Constitution of the United States" and broken his
confidentiality; that he was lost in the shuffle when he was about to be discharged from Fulton
State Hospital ; that "they" and "social worker Denise Boyde from here" admitted to opening and
reading his mail ; that he has been slandered, ridiculed and humiliated religiously; and that his
reputation as an ordained minister has been ruined . (Docket No. 1 at 5). As relief, he seeks
$1,000,000.00 in damages.
Because Southeast Missouri Mental Health Center and Fulton State Hospital are entities
of the State of Missouri , plaintiffs claims against them are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Because Boyde is an employee
of Fulton State Hospital, plaintiffs official capacity claims against her for monetary damages are
also barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Andrus ex rel. Andrus v. Arkansas, 197 F.3d 953 , 955
(8th Cir. 1999) (citing Will, 491 U.S. 58) ("A claim for damages against a state employee in his
official capacity is barred under the Eleventh Amendment").
Therefore, plaintiffs claims
against Southeast Missouri Mental Health Center and Fulton State Hospital, and plaintiffs
official capacity claims against Boyde, will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
Plaintiffs individual capacity claims against Boyde will be dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The only factual allegation against Boyde is that she admitted she
had opened and read plaintiffs mail. Plaintiff does not allege that the mail at issue was legal
mail, nor does he allege an actual injury to pending or contemplated legal claims or interference
with his right to counsel. Plaintiff also fails to allege facts tending to show that Boyde regularly
and unjustifiably interfered with his mail , or that she destroyed, withheld or refused to send any
mail. It therefore cannot be said that plaintiff states a claim of constitutional magnitude against
Boyde. See Myers v. Hundley, 101 F.3d 542, 544 (8th Cir. 1996) (to state a claim for denial of
access to the courts, a plaintiff must assert that he suffered an actual injury to pending or
contemplated legal claims); Davis v. Goard, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 2003) (to state a claim
under the First Amendment, a plaintiff must show a regular and unjustifiable interference with
mail); see also Zimmerman v. Tribble , 226 F.3d 568, 572 (7th Cir. 2000) (allegations of sporadic
and short-term delays and disruptions in mail are insufficient to state a claim under the First
Amendment). The remainder of the complaint sets forth generalized, rambling allegations that
"staff' and "they" committed various forms of wrongdoing. These allegations do not state a
claim against Boyde because liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct
responsibility for, the alleged deprivation of rights. Martin, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985)
(claim not cognizable under § 1983 where the plaintiff failed to allege that a defendant was
personally involved in or directly responsible for incidents that injured him).
Civil plaintiffs are required to set forth their claims in a simple, concise, and direct
manner, and they are required to set forth the facts supporting such claims as to each named
defendant. This Court' s obligation to liberally construe plaintiffs complaint does not include the
obligation to create facts or construct claims that have not been alleged. See Stone, 364 F.3d at
914-15 (Court is not required to "assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional
factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint."). Having liberally construed the
complaint, the Court concludes that it is subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Docket No . 2) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of counsel
(Docket No. 3) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
thisL~y of August,
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED ST ATES 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?