Croy v. Butler County Justice Center

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION AMY KRISTEN CROY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 1:21-CV-169 JAR ) BUTLER COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the motion of self-represented plaintiff Amy Kristen Croy, a pretrial detainee at Butler County Jail, for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. ECF No. 2. Having reviewed the motion and the financial information submitted in support, the Court has determined that plaintiff lacks sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee and will assess an initial partial filing fee of $20.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will allow plaintiff the opportunity to submit an amended complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), a prisoner bringing a civil action in forma pauperis is required to pay the full amount of the filing fee. If the prisoner has insufficient funds in her prison account to pay the entire fee, the Court must assess and, when funds exist, collect an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of (1) the average monthly deposits in the prisoner’s account, or (2) the average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the prior six-month period. 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 her account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of the prisoner will forward these monthly payments to the Clerk of Court Id. In support of her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff submitted a copy of her Resident Account Summary. ECF No. 3. A review of plaintiff’s account from the relevant six-month period indicates an average monthly deposit of $100.00 and an average monthly balance of $7.55. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $20.00, which is 20 percent of plaintiff’s average monthly deposits.

Legal Standard on Initial Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 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 may be granted. An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

“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.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 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. The court must assume the veracity of well-pleaded facts but need not accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

This Court must liberally construe complaints filed by laypeople. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). This means that “if the essence of an allegation is discernible,” the court the proper legal framework.” Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004)). However, even self-represented complaints must allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980). Federal courts are not required to assume facts that are not alleged, Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15, nor are they required to interpret procedural rules in order to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

The Complaint On November 19, 2021, self-represented plaintiff filed the instant action on a Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint form pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff brings this action against three defendants in their official capacities only: (1) Butler County Justice Center; (2) John Doe, Jail Administrator; and (3) Jane Doe, Nurse.

Plaintiff alleges she was held at the Butler County Justice Center (the “Jail”) from May 31, 2021 to June 17, 2021. During this time, plaintiff states she had a vaginal yeast infection, and was denied medicine by the Jail Administrator and Nurse. As a result, she asserts that she “suffered from severe physical pain and depression.” Plaintiff further alleges she was housed in a cell “that did not have running water and did not have a toilet that worked properly,” and was denied “necessary items,” including tampons and sanitary napkins.

For relief, plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the amount of $100,000 for physical pain and mental anguish.

Having thoroughly reviewed and liberally construed plaintiff’s complaint, the Court concludes that it is subject to dismissal. However, in consideration of plaintiff’s self-represented status, the Court will allow her to file an amended complaint.

A. Claims against the Butler County Justice Center Plaintiff’s claims against the Butler County Justice Center are subject to dismissal. It is well-established that a department or subdivision of local government is not a “juridical,” or suable entity, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (1992); Owens v. Scott Cty. Jail, 328 F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003) (stating that “county jails are not legal entities amenable to suit”); and De La Garza v. Kandiyohi Cty. Jail, 18 Fed. Appx. 436, 437 (8th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court dismissal of county jail and sheriff’s department as parties because they are not suable entities). Consequently, plaintiff’s complaint is legally frivolous as to the local government entity defendant.

B. Official Capacity Claims against John Doe and Jane Doe Plaintiff also brings this action against Jail Administrator John Doe and Nurse Jane Doe in their official capacities only. Naming an official in his or her official capacity is the equivalent of naming the government entity that employs the official. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). An official capacity suit is a “way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985). Plaintiff alleges the Doe defendants are employees of the Jail. As discussed above, the Jail is not a distinctly suable entity. Thus, plaintiff’s official capacity claim against the Doe defendants, as employees of the Butler County Jail, are subject to dismissal. would still be subject to dismissal. Unlike the Jail, a local governing body such as Butler County can be sued directly under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). However, plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of non-conclusory allegations that would state a claim of municipal liability. See Mick v. Raines, 883 F.3d 1075, 1079 (8th Cir. 2018); see Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91. Thus, to the extent Butler County employs the Doe defendants, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a municipal liability claim. See Ulrich v. Pope Cty., 715 F.3d 1054, 1061 (8th Cir. 2013) (affirming district court’s dismissal of Monell claim where plaintiff “alleged no facts in his complaint that would demonstrate the existence of a policy or custom” that caused the alleged deprivation of plaintiff’s rights).

Plaintiff has not brought this action against the defendants in their individual capacities.

As such, the Court will not review plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as to whether it can survive initial review against the Doe defendants in their individual capacities. However, in consideration of plaintiff’s self-represented status and the severity of the allegations, the Court will permit her to file an amended complaint.

If plaintiff wishes to sue defendants in their individual capacities, plaintiff must specifically say so in the amended complaint, and must allege facts connecting the defendant to the challenged action. See 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); Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995) (respondeat superior theory inapplicable in § 1983 suits); Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting that general responsibility for supervising operations of prison is insufficient to establish personal involvement required to support liability under § 1983). “It is not enough to allege that [a] ‘defendant[ ]’ refused to treat his injuries. A federal complaint must a particular action.” Drummer v. Corizon Corr. Health Care, 2016 WL 3971399, at *1 (E.D. Mo. July 25, 2016); see also Miles v. Corizon Healthcare, 2019 WL 2085998, at *4 (E.D. Mo. May 13, 2019) (a general refusal to treat allegation, without any additional information, is nothing more than a conclusory statement and cannot suffice to state a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment). If plaintiff fails to sue defendants in their individual capacities, this action may be dismissed after this Court’s review of her amended complaint.

Instructions on Amending the Complaint Plaintiff is warned that the filing of an amended complaint replaces the original complaint, and so it must include all claims plaintiff wishes to bring. See In re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) (“It is well-established that an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect”). Plaintiff must type or neatly print the amended complaint on the Court’s prisoner civil rights complaint form, which will be provided to her. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 45 – 2.06(A) (“All actions brought by self-represented plaintiffs or petitioners should be filed on Court-provided forms”).

In the “Caption” section of the amended complaint, plaintiff must state the first and last name, to the extent she knows it, of each defendant she wishes to sue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the parties”). Plaintiff must avoid naming anyone as a defendant unless that person is directly related to her claim. Plaintiff must also specify whether she intends to sue each defendant in his or her individual capacity, official capacity, or both.

Fictitious parties, such as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” may not generally be named as defendants in a civil action. Phelps v. United States, 15 F.3d 735, 739 (8th Cir. 1994). However, an action may proceed against a party whose name is unknown if the complaint makes sufficiently Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 1985). Therefore, to avoid dismissal of any fictitious parties, plaintiff’s allegations against any Doe defendant must provide enough facts to enable the identification of that fictitious defendant during discovery.

In the “Statement of Claim” section, plaintiff should begin by writing the defendant’s name. In separate, numbered paragraphs under that name, plaintiff should set forth a short and plain statement of the facts that support her claim or claims against that defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Each averment must be simple, concise, and direct. See id. Plaintiff must state her claims in numbered paragraphs, and each paragraph should be “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). If plaintiff names a single defendant, she may set forth as many claims as she has against that defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff names more than one defendant, she should only include claims that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or simply put, claims that are related to each other. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).

It is important that plaintiff allege facts explaining how each defendant was personally involved in or directly responsible for harming her. See Madewell, 909 F.2d at 1208. Plaintiff must explain the role of the defendant, so that the defendant will have notice of what he or she is accused of doing or failing to do. See Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that the essential function of a complaint “is to give the opposing party fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim.”). Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that the “Statement of Claim” requires more than “labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” See Neubauer v. FedEx Corp., 849 F.3d 400, 404 (8th Cir. 2017). Plaintiff must not amend a complaint by filing separate documents. Instead, she must file a single, comprehensive pleading that sets forth her claims for relief.

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 $20.00 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make her remittance payable to “Clerk, United States District Court,” and to include upon it: (1) her name; (2) her prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) the statement that the remittance is for an original proceeding.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail to plaintiff two blank Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint forms. Plaintiff may request additional forms as needed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must file an amended complaint on the Court’s form within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is advised that her amended complaint will take the place of her original complaint and will be the only pleading that this Court will review.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Memorandum and Order, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further notice.

Dated this 3rd day of December, 2021.

NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE