United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER SCREENING CASE AND GRANTING LEAVE
ROBERTO A. LANGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Travis R. McPeek ("McPeek"), an inmate at the
Yankton County Jail in Yankton, South Dakota, filed this
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. This Court
has screened his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. For the following reasons, the Court grants McPeek
leave to amend his complaint.
FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT
January 4, 2017, McPeek signed an extradition agreement that
he alleges allowed Bon Homme County, South Dakota to
transport him. Doc. 1 at 4. On January 12, 2017, McPeek was
placed on a Northwest Shuttle and transferred. Id.
He alleges that he was mistreated during the transport.
Id. at 5-6. He appears to allege that he was denied
the use of a bathroom, he was shackled, he was stripped
searched, and he was booked into county jails without charges
pending in those counties. Id. at 5. McPeek also
alleges that his medical needs were ignored, that he was
denied medication, that he has myofascial muscle and tissue
damage, fibromyalgia, and that he was recently shot five
times. Id. at 6.
February 13, 2017, McPeek filed a complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1983. He raises three claims and names as
defendants those who he alleges were involved in the
arrangements for the transport. Id. at 4. As relief,
McPeek requests monetary damages of $12 million. Id.
at 7. McPeek also requests that he be appointed counsel to
aid him with his lawsuit. Id.
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); Ellis
v. City of Minneapolis, 518 F.App'x 502, 504 (8th
Cir. 2013). Civil rights complaints cannot be merely
conclusory. Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152 (8th
Cir. 1993); Parker v. Porter, 221 F.App'x 481,
482 (8th Cir. 2007).
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." Bell Atl. 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 prisoner
claims filed in forma pauperis and determine whether they are
(1) "frivolous, malicious, or fail[ ] to state a claim
on which relief may be granted; or (2) seek[ ] monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief."
See also Onstad v. Wilkinson, 534 F.App'x 581,
582 (8th Cir. 2013).
Screening Under § 1915A
complaint raises three claims. He claims that defendants
violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by
illegally transferring him, by mistreating him during the
transfer, and by denying him medical treatment during the
transfer. McPeek does not allege which defendants committed
Count I - Illegal Transfer
claims that defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment
rights by illegally transferring him. According to the
complaint, McPeek signed a document agreeing to be
transferred, but he claims that he only agreed to be
transferred by Bon Homme County. Doc. 1 at 4. McPeek,
however, does not have a constitutional right to be
transferred by a certain entity. Therefore, he fails to state
a claim upon ...