McGinness v. Lester

1

MATTHEW J. MCGINNESS, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN ORVILLE LESTER, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:22-cv-00085-SEP

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

May 22, 2023

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SARAH E. PITLYK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are two separate amended complaints filed by Plaintiff Matthew J. McGinness. Docs. [26], [31]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

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 or malicious, or if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C § 1983, 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 on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. The court must “accept as true the facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958 964 (8th Cir. 2016); see also Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73 (8th Cir. 2016) (court is not required to “accept as true any legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).

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 . . . then the district court should construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson's claim to be considered within 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 pro se complaints are required to “allege facts, which if true, state a claim as a matter of law.” Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980); see also Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15 (federal courts not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”). And “procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation” need not be “interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.” See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

Background

Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant currently incarcerated at the Northeast Correctional Center in Bowling Green, Missouri. On January 21, 2022, he filed a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming Captain Orville Lester, Nurse Jamie Unknown, H. Deutsch, Chris Cox, T. Misuraco, G. Tipton, and Sheriff Rick Harrell as Defendants. Doc. [1]. All Defendants are sued in both individual and official capacities. At the time of filing, Plaintiff was a detainee at the Lincoln County Jail in Troy, Missouri.

The complaint contained allegations regarding Plaintiff's medications, the Lincoln County Jail's COVID-19 protocols, and the nonpayment of sales taxes. His central allegation, however, was that he was prescribed amitriptyline, which is the generic form of Elavil, but that a “nurse told [him] that [he] would have to get a different medication because she had exceeded her budget for the year.” Id. at 3-4. At the time, Plaintiff alleged that he had been without the medication for two weeks, though he did not explain why he needed the prescription. He noted that he was eventually able to pay for the medication. Id. at 4.

For relief, Plaintiff sought $79.67 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. Id. at 5. He also asked that “Federal Marshals assume control of the jail until a point that the county employees are able to do so without violating the constitution.” Id.

On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Summary Judgment,” which the Court construed as a motion for summary judgment. Doc. [4]. In the motion, Plaintiff repeated the allegations in his complaint and added certain clarifying facts. Specifically, he alleged that he was prescribed Elavil on October 14, 2021, but “the nurse advised that the prescription would not be filled until the inmate account had funds available to pay for it,” and “the prescription was not filled until” November 16, 2021, when Plaintiff had funds in his inmate account. Id.

Along with his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Injunctive Relief,” which the Court construed as a motion for injunctive relief. Doc [5]. In the motion, he complained that he was being held on $150,000 cash bond, and that the amount had not changed during the four months he had been incarcerated.

On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Amendment to Civil Rights Complaint.” Doc. [7]. In the document, Plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint to raise his actual damages “by $40,000.00” because his motorcycle-which had been impounded upon his arrest-had been sold by the towing company.

On the same day he asked to amend his complaint, Plaintiff submitted a “Brief in Support of Request for Summary Judgment.” Doc. [8]. In the brief, he repeated his claim that he was prescribed medication by a doctor but had to wait a month to receive it. The majority of the brief, however, was devoted to Plaintiff's argument about excessive bond, which had not been raised in his summary judgment motion.

Along with his amendment request and brief, Plaintiff also filed a second “Request for Injunctive Relief.” Doc. [9]. In this document Plaintiff complained about the progress of his criminal case, including the lack of laboratory analysis of the substance he allegedly delivered and the excessiveness of his bond. Plaintiff also asserted that, after reading the relevant statute, he was “convinced that [he was] in no way guilty of the charge.” He thus asked the Court to relieve him of his bond and release him from custody.

On March 17, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court containing new allegations regarding his confinement. Doc. [11]. Specifically, Plaintiff noted that there had been “two overdose deaths” at the Lincoln County Jail, along with “a number of non-lethal overdoses.” Based on rumors, he speculated that correctional staff were “somehow involved” with drugs getting into the jail. Because of this, Plaintiff stated that he did not “feel particularly safe.” In addition, he claimed that he posed “no threat to the community.” As such, Plaintiff renewed his request for the Court to “get involved with [his] criminal case.”

On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff submitted a document titled “[Evidentiary] Affidavit,” in which he sought “to add issues” to his complaint. Doc. [12]. He complained therein that his “file remained inactive” for three months due to “infighting between the Clerk[']s Office and Judge Flynn.” Id. at 2. On June 8, 2022, Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss his case. Doc. [13]. On June 17, 2022, he moved to withdraw his request to dismiss. Doc. [14].

On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff submitted a document titled “Affidavit in Support of Civil Rights Complaint.” Doc. [15]. In that document, he asked “to be able to address the issue of food,” and went on to complain that he was not receiving dairy or fruit. Id. at 3. He further complained that the food was provided by a contractor, and that it was not nutritional. Id.

On August 25, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed an initial partial filing fee. Doc. [20]. Because he was proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court reviewed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on that review, the Court determined that his complaint was subject to dismissal. Among other things, the Court noted that Plaintiff had improperly attempted to join unrelated claims, he had not adequately pleaded municipal liability to support his official capacity claims, and he had not demonstrated that Defendants had been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.

Rather than dismissing outright, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, sent him a form on which to do so, and provided instructions on how to properly amend. He was given 30 days to comply and was advised that the filing of an amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint. See In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005).

On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time in which to submit his amended complaint. Doc. [24]. The Court granted the motion on September 20, 2022. Doc. [25].

The Court received an amended complaint from Plaintiff on September 26, 2022. Doc. [26]. A month thereafter, on October 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed another motion for an extension of time in which to submit an amended complaint. Doc. [27]. The Court denied the motion as moot, as Plaintiff's amended complaint had already been received. Doc. [28]. On November 22, 2022, however, Plaintiff submitted a second amended complaint. Doc. [31]. Plaintiff did not explain why he submitted two separate amended complaints or indicate which amended complaint he wants to be treated as the operative pleading.

First Amended Complaint

The first amended complaint is on a Court-provided 42 U.S.C § 1983 form. Doc. [26]. It names Captain Orville Lester of the Lincoln County Jail and...