United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Central Division
MIRIAM C. MONTILEAUX, Plaintiff,
WILLIAM SCHIED, JON DEGREEF, SCOTT MEES, STEPHANIE PAUL, JESSICA UCKER, JAYME BALOUN, TANYA PERMAN, JAMES NELSON, Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE
ROBERTO A. LANGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Miriam C. Montileaux, is an inmate at the South Dakota
Women's Prison in Pierre. She filed a pro se civil rights
lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 22, 2016, an
amended complaint on April 20, 2016, and a second amended
complaint on May 9, 2016. Doc. 1; Doc. 9; Doc. 13. Because
Montileaux is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, this
Court must screen her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
For the reasons stated below, Montileaux's complaint
FACTS ALLEGED IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
previous complaints, Montileaux alleged that prison staff
claimed she made allegations that Michael Carlton, a member
of prison staff, sexually assaulted her. Doc. 1; Doc. 9.
According to the second amended complaint, William Schied,
Stephanie Paul, and Jessica Ucker tampered with
Montileaux's medical and mental health records to
facilitate bringing charges against Carlton. Doc. 13 at 2-3.
Tanya Perman and James Nelsen allegedly misconstrued
Montileaux's remarks and made false accusations against
Carlton. Id. at 3-4. Jon Degreef and Scott Mees
allegedly made false statements to the state court, claiming
that Carlton had sexually assaulted Montileaux even though
she did not say that. Id. at 2. According to the
second amended complaint, Jayme Baloun "went along"
with Degreef and Mees' claims because Schied ordered him
to. Id. at 3.
March 22, 2016, Montileaux filed her original complaint. Doc.
1. The Court screened Montileaux's complaint and ordered
service after dismissing certain defendants. Doc. 7.
Montileaux then filed an amended complaint. Doc. 9. Before
the Court had screened the amended complaint, Montileaux
filed a second amended complaint. Doc. 13. She is not
attempting to add back defendants who have been previously
requests some relief beyond what this Court can do. She wants
this Court to order the state court to disclose information
and the judgment from the proceedings concerning Michael
Carlton, to remove her name and medical records from that
matter, and to have criminal charges brought against
defendants. Id. at 9.
stage of the case, this Court must accept the well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Schriener v.
Quicken Loans, Inc., 774 F.3d 442, 444 (8th Cir. 2014).
Civil rights and pro se complaints must be liberally
construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (citation omitted); Bediako v. Stein Mart,
Inc., 354 F.3d 835, 839 (8th Cir. 2004). Even with this
construction, "a pro se complaint must contain specific
facts supporting its conclusions." Martin v.
Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). Civil
rights complaints cannot be merely conclusory. Davis v.
Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152 (8th Cir. 1993).
complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations .
. . [but] requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do." BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "If a plaintiff cannot make the
requisite showing, dismissal is appropriate."
Beavers v. Lockhart, 755 F.2d 657, 663 (8th Cir.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this Court must screen any prisoner
complaint filed in forma pauperis and determine whether it is
(1) "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief."
her previous complaints brought unviable claims against
improper defendants, her second amended complaint does not
raise these claims or name these defendants. "When a
plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint
is superseded and has no legal effect." Thomas v.
United Steelworkers Local 1938, 743 F.3d 1134, 1139 (8th
Cir. 2014) (citing In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209
F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000)). Construed liberally,
Montileaux's second amended complaint raises a single
claim: that defendants violated her privacy by tampering with
her medical and mental health records in order to bring
charges against Michael Carlton.
alleges that her medical and mental health records were
tampered with, falsified, and disseminated in order to pursue
false charges against Carlton. Doc. 13 at 6. She claims her
Eighth Amendment rights were violated because she was denied
adequate and accurate records. Id. at 9. While
courts have found that inadequate medical records may violate
a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights, it was because the
medical records were necessary to provide adequate health
care. Burks v. Teasdale, 492 F.Supp. 650, 676 (W.D.
Mo. 1980). Montileaux's claim concerns the privacy of her
medical file rather than her health care. She alleges that
defendants altered her file in order to bring charges against
a third party and disseminated that false information about
arguably has a right to the privacy of her medical files. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has
recognized generally that the "Constitution protects
individuals against invasion of their privacy by the
government." McCaslin v. Campbell, No. 95-4041,
1997 WL 148824, at *2 (8th Cir. April 2, 1997). "Th[e]
protection against public dissemination of information is
limited and extends only to highly personal matters
representing 'the ...