Young v. Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services et al

Filing 57

ORDER granting 46 motion to dismiss case; granting 49 motion to dismiss party. The complaint against each defendant is dismissed without prejudice. Signed on 08/25/11 by District Judge Howard F. Sachs. (Copy of order mailed to pro se plaintiff on 08/25/11.) (Duer, Tina)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION ROBERT RAY YOUNG, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ) AND SENIOR SERVICES, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) Case No.: 09-6061-CV-SJ-HFS ORDER This is a pro se case filed by an apparently mentally-challenged plaintiff. Two defendant doctors seek dismissal for failure to state a claim (doc. #46), pursuant to my invitation (in Doc. #32) and the State agency and a State employee have also filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. #49). Although given time to respond to the motions, plaintiff has failed to do so. The papers filed by plaintiff are largely incomprehensible. See Docs. #5 and #28. Dr. Fadare is “not mentioned” and there is no “comprehensible complaint against Dr. Mahmood”, as they contended earlier. The State agency is similarly not mentioned as a party to misconduct. Defendant Stacy Thomas is sued as a State employee and author of a letter to which plaintiff objects. There is no comprehensible claim of a violation of Federal law even if one could dream up some sort of State law claim. Pleadings like this are subject to dismissal. White v. United States, 588 F.2d 650 (8th Cir. 1978); Cofield v. Williams, 1997 WL 68271 (C.A.D.C.); Olguin v. Atherton, 215 F.3d 1337, 2000 WL 757727 (10th Cir.). Plaintiff cannot process a lawsuit without articulating some violation of law by a named defendant that would be within the jurisdiction of this court. The complaint against each defendant will therefore be DISMISSED without prejudice and the pending motions (Docs. #46 and #49) will be GRANTED. SO ORDERED. /s/ Howard F. Sachs HOWARD F. SACHS Senior United States District Judge August 25 , 2011 Kansas City, MO -2-

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?