Jones v. Missouri Department of Mental Health

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's applications to proceed in the district court without prepayment of fees and costs [ECF Nos. #5 and #7 ] are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel [ECF Nos. #4 and #6 ] are DENIED as moot. An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by Sr. District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 3/10/25. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMIE JONES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL )
HEALTH,
)
)
Defendant.
)

No. 4:25-cv-80-SRW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on self-represented Plaintiff Jamie Jones’s applications to
proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs. ECF Nos. 5, 7. Based on the financial
information provided in the applications, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing
fee and will waive it. Additionally, for the reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s
claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Legal Standard on Initial Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed without
prepayment of the filing fee if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. To state a claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is
more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “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 upon judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679.

When reviewing a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give it
the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A “liberal
construction” means that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, the district court should
construe the plaintiff’s complaint in a way that permits his or her claim to be considered within
the proper legal framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015).
The Complaint
Self-represented Plaintiff Jamie Jones, a civil detainee currently being held at the
Metropolitan Psychiatric Center in St. Louis, Missouri, filed the instant civil rights action on
January 21, 2025, against the Missouri Department of Mental Health (“MDMH”). ECF No. 1. He
alleged he was “kidnapped” by the MDMH without any additional facts. He sought $500,000 in
monetary damages.
On January 23, 2025, the Court informed Plaintiff that his statement of claim was deficient
as written and directed him to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 2. The Court explained that his
amended complaint needed to include a short and plain statement of facts that supported his
claim(s). Id. at 2. The Court also informed him that the MDOC was not an appropriate defendant
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 Id.
The Amended Complaint
Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on February 3, 2025, against the MDOC and no other
defendants. ECF No. 3. His allegations are not entirely clear, so the Court will quote his statement
of claim in full:

The Court additionally ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why he should not be required to have the permission
of his Missouri guardian to pursue this action, as well as the appointment of either a guardian ad litem and/or next
friend, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. Id. at 5. Plaintiff did not comply and, thus, failed to
show cause. The Court, however, will not address the competency issue as this action is being dismissed for failure to
state a claim.

1

2

When the Dept of Mental Health was placed for a contract 6 months of threatment.
NO threatment was done until the 200 day Now the Department subcontract to
Psych Center for another 6 month. March 1 2025 Jamie Jones would have been a
prsiner of the Department of Mental Health.
ECF No. 3 at 3 (errors in original).
Plaintiff describes his injuries as “wit[]ness[ing] contractual law trample[d] on” and
“felony obstruction.” Id. at 4. Id. For damages, he seeks $500,000.
Discussion
Plaintiff’s claim against the Missouri Department of Health must be dismissed for failure
to state a claim. “Section 1983 provides for an action against a ‘person’ for a violation, under color
of law, of another’s civil rights.” McLean v. Gordon, 548 F.3d 613, 618 (8th Cir. 2008); see also
Deretich v. Office of Admin. Hearings, 798 F.2d 1147, 1154 (8th Cir. 1986) (stating that “[§] 1983
provides a cause of action against persons only”). However, “neither a State nor its officials acting
in their official capacity are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491
U.S. 58, 71 (1989); see also Calzone v. Hawley, 866 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir. 2017) (stating that a
“State is not a person under § 1983”); Kruger v. Nebraska, 820 F.3d 295, 301 (8th Cir. 2016)
(stating that “a state is not a person for purposes of a claim for money damages under § 1983”).
Furthermore, an agency exercising state power is also not a person subject to suit under § 1983.
See Barket, Levy & Fine, Inc. v. St. Louis Thermal Energy Corp., 948 F.2d 1084, 1086 (8th Cir.
1991). Moreover, the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a state or its agencies for any kind of
relief, not merely monetary damages. Monroe v. Arkansas State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir.
2007).
Plaintiff’s claim against the Missouri Department of Mental Health is a claim against a
state agency. However, as noted above, a state agency is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983.
3

Furthermore, suit against the Missouri Department of Mental Health is barred by the Eleventh
Amendment. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim against the Department of Mental Health must be
dismissed.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in the district court
without prepayment of fees and costs [ECF Nos. 5 and 7] are GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel [ECF Nos. 4
and 6] are DENIED as moot.
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 10th day of March, 2025.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4