Matanzo v. St. Charles County Jail et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KARLO A. MATANZO, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:26-cv-00063-ACL
)
ST. CHARLES COUNTY JAIL, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon self-represented plaintiff Karlo A. Matanzo’s
application to proceed without prepayment of the required filing fees and cost. [Doc. 3].
Having reviewed the application and the financial information submitted in support, the
Court will grant the application, waive prepayment of the filing fee, and permit plaintiff
to proceed in forma pauperis. Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the
Court must review his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on such review, the
Court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
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).
Case: 4:26-cv-00063-ACL Doc. #: 5 Filed: 05/11/26 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
“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 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).
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, the
district court should construe the plaintiff’s complaint in a way that permits his or her
claim to be considered within the proper legal framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d
777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). However, even pro se complaints are required to 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); see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004)
(stating that federal courts are not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just
because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”). In
addition, affording a pro se complaint the benefit of a liberal construction does not mean
that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation must be interpreted so as to excuse
mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S.
106, 113 (1993).
Case: 4:26-cv-00063-ACL Doc. #: 5 Filed: 05/11/26 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
The Complaint
Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee currently held in the St. Charles County Jail. On
January 14, 2026, plaintiff filed the instant action against St. Charles County Jail and St.
Charles County Court. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff lists a variety of complaints, including being
denied a 10% bond, “delay and denial of medically necessary device,” lack of appropriate
care, being threatened by an inmate, and not seeing the sun due to blacked-out windows.
[Id. at 3-4]. He also states he has been experiencing “cord issues.” [Id.]. Regarding
injuries, he alleges that he was bitten by a spider and was taken to the emergency room
13 hours after developing a fever. [Id. at 4]. He requests monetary damages and a bond
reduction. [Id. at 5].
Discussion
Based on a careful review and liberal construction of the filings before the Court,
the Court will dismiss this action.
The sole defendants here are St. Charles County Jail and St. Charles County Court.
“Section 1983 provides for an action against a ‘person’ for a violation, under color of law,
of another’s civil rights.” McLean v. Gordon, 548 F.3d 613, 618 (8th Cir. 2008). A jail,
however, is not a distinctly suable entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 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) (“county jails are not legal entities amenable to suit”); 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 because they are not suable entities).
Case: 4:26-cv-00063-ACL Doc. #: 5 Filed: 05/11/26 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Further, plaintiff’s claims against the St. Charles County Courts are not cognizable
because the Circuit Court cannot legally be sued. See Ketchum v. City of W. Memphis,
Ark., 974 F.2d at 82 (departments or subdivisions of local government are not “juridical
entities suable as such.”). Further, state courts are not vulnerable to suits under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 because they are protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Mildfelt v. Circuit
Court of Jackson Cty., Mo., 827 F.2d 343, 345 (8th Cir. 1987); see also Harris v. Missouri
Court of Appeals, Western Dist., 787 F.2d 427, 429 (8th Cir. 1986) (stating that “courts as
entities are not vulnerable to § 1983 suits, because they are protected by state immunity
under the eleventh amendment”). The only two defendants named in this case are not
suable entities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Consequently, plaintiff’s complaint is legally
frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
To the extent the plaintiff intends to bring this case against St. Charles County, his
complaint still falls short. A local governing body can be sued directly under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). To
prevail on this type of claim, a plaintiff must establish the governmental entity’s liability
for the alleged conduct. Kelly v. City of Omaha, Neb., 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir.
2016). Such liability may attach if the constitutional violation “resulted from (1) an
official municipal policy, (2) an unofficial custom, or (3) a deliberately indifferent failure
to train or supervise.” Mick v. Raines, 883 F.3d 1075, 1079 (8th Cir. 2018); see also
Marsh v. Phelps Cty., 902 F.3d 745, 751 (8th Cir. 2018) (recognizing “claims challenging
an unconstitutional policy or custom, or those based on a theory of inadequate training,
which is an extension of the same”). Here, plaintiff has failed to provide any facts that
Case: 4:26-cv-00063-ACL Doc. #: 5 Filed: 05/11/26 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
would establish liability under Monell. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts supporting the
proposition that an unconstitutional policy or custom exists. He merely lists several
grievances with little to no factual detail or support. This does not indicate any
unconstitutional policy or custom. Further, plaintiff has provided no allegations or facts
indicating a deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise. Thus, plaintiff’s
complaint fails to state a claim against St. Charles County.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed without
prepayment of the required filing fees and costs (Doc. 3) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be
taken in good faith.
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
SO ORDERED on this 11th day of May, 2026.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:26-cv-00063-ACL Doc. #: 5 Filed: 05/11/26 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>