Opinion
No. 4:18-CV-247 RWS
06-08-2018
DEAN BRYAN DAVIDSON, Plaintiff, v. FULTON STATE HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants.
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 ("SEMHC"), 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 in forma pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To state a claim for relief, a complaint must plead more than "legal conclusions" and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a "mere possibility of misconduct." Id. at 679. "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.
When reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. Furthermore, the Court liberally construes the allegations.
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Named as defendants are Fulton State Hospital and SEMHC. Plaintiff states that he sues both defendants in their official and individual capacities.
Plaintiff alleges that he is being wrongfully detained; that staff has opened and read his legal mail; that he was lost in the shuffle when he was about to be discharged from Fulton State Hospital; that the United States Patent and Trademark Office thinks he has abandoned his inventions, possibly costing him millions in royalties; that "they" are practicing illegal authority over plaintiff under the Constitution of the United States; that he is being kept at SEMHC voluntarily by his guardian because of his brain trauma injury; that he has been discriminated against because of his religion and his Native American heritage; and that he has been slandered religiously and ridiculed and humiliated, ruining his reputation as an ordained minister.
Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $1,000,000 for pain and suffering, $150,000 per defendant for restitution for interfering with his mail, and $1,000,000 for defendants' refusal to allow him to obtain patents on his inventions.
Discussion
The instant complaint alleges the same claims based upon the same facts as a prior complaint filed by plaintiff and dismissed by this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Davidson v. Fulton State Hosp., No. 4:18-CV-103 RLW (E.D. Mo., filed Jan. 29, 2018). While the dismissal of the prior complaint "does not bar future litigation over the merits of a paid complaint making the same allegations as the dismissed complaint, a § 1915(e) dismissal has res judicata effect 'on frivolousness determinations for future in forma pauperis petitions.'" Waller v. Groose, 38 F.3d 1007, 1008 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (quoting Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992)); see also Cooper v. Delo, 997 F.2d 376, 377 (8th Cir. 1993) (§ 1915(e) dismissal has res judicata effect on future IFP petitions). Accordingly, the Court determines that the § 1915(e) dismissal of plaintiff's prior case has res judicata effect and establishes that this complaint, making the same allegations based upon the same facts, is frivolous for § 1915(e) purposes.
Additionally, because SEMHC and Fulton State Hospital are entities of the State of Missouri, plaintiff's claims against them are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). --------
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF 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).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to consolidate cases is DENIED as moot. [ECF No. 4]
An order of dismissal will accompany this memorandum and order.
Dated this 8th day of June, 2018.
/s/_________
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE