Gibson v. Cook et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because the complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).An appropriate order shall accompany this memorandum and order. Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 1/15/2010. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION TRAVIS W. GIBSON, Plaintiff, v. RICH COOK, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 1:09-CV-176-LMB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon the application of Travis W. Gibson for leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee. consideration completed financially of the See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). information finds provided that of the with Upon the is fee.

financial the pay

application, unable to

Court any

plaintiff filing

portion

Therefore, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis at any time if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if "it Neitzke v.

lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

An action fails to state a

claim upon which relief can 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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal The

construction.

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). The complaint Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against defendants Rick Cook (Police Officer), Jeff Mitchell (Police Officer), Josh Benton (Police Officer), Tony Roberts Denton

(Police Officer), Paul Harbould (Police Officer), City of Dexter, Missouri, Stoddard County, Missouri, Carl Hefner (Stoddard County Sheriff), Joe Briney Welborn (Stoddard County Prosecutor),

Catherine Rice (Public Defender), Tipton Correctional Center, John Doe (D.O.C. Supervisor), Stanley W. Braswell (D.O.C. Caseworker), State of Missouri, Cameron Correctional Center, Western Missouri Correctional Center, and Roxann Cook (Probation Officer).

Plaintiff alleges that he was unlawfully arrested, maliciously prosecuted, incompetently represented by counsel, and illegally imprisoned for two years, during which he was denied physical 2

access to the law library. subsequently overturned.

He states that his conviction was

In addition, plaintiff asserts numerous

state-law claims, including negligence, malicious prosecution, and defamation of character. Discussion A. Section 1983 Claims

Plaintiff brings this action against defendants Rick Cook, Jeff Mitchell, Josh Benton, Tony Roberts, Paul Harbould, Carl Hefner, Stanley W. Braswell, Roxann Cook, and John Doe in their official capacities. See Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College,

72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995)(where a complaint is silent about defendant's capacity, Court must interpret the complaint as

including official-capacity claims); Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1989). Naming a government official in his or her

official capacity is the equivalent of naming the government entity that employs the official, in this case the State of Missouri. See

Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). "[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are `persons' under § 1983." Id. Accordingly, as to

defendants Rick Cook, Jeff Mitchell, Josh Benton, Tony Roberts, Paul Harbould, Carl Hefner, Stanley W. Braswell, Roxann Cook, and John Doe, the complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

3

The complaint is legally frivolous as to defendant Joe Briney Welborn, because a prosecutor is absolutely immune from suit for damages under § 1983 for alleged violations committed in "initiating a prosecution and in presenting the state's case." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976); Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437, 1448 (8th Cir. 1987). allegations of vindictive prosecution. at 1446. This immunity extends to Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d Catherine

The complaint is also legally frivolous as to

Rice, because public defenders performing lawyers' traditional functions do not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). Although a municipality is not entitled to absolute immunity in § 1983 actions, it cannot be held liable under a respondeat superior theory. Monell v. Department of Social

Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978).

Municipal liability cannot be

imposed absent an allegation that unlawful actions were taken pursuant to a municipality's policy or custom. Id. at 694. There

being no such allegation in the present action, the complaint is legally frivolous as to defendants City of Dexter, Missouri, and Stoddard County, Missouri. A suit against a state correctional center is, in effect, a claim against the State of Missouri; however, the State of Missouri is absolutely immune from liability under § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. at 63. 4 See

As such,

the complaint is legally frivolous as to defendants defendants Tipton Correctional Center, Cameron Correctional Center, and

Western Missouri Correctional Center. The complaint is legally frivolous as to defendant State of Missouri, because a state is absolutely immune from liability under § 1983. For See id. the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss

plaintiff's § 1983 action against all the named defendants. B. Pendent State Claims

Because plaintiff's federal claims will be dismissed, all remaining pendent state claims should be dismissed, as well. See

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (if federal claims are dismissed before trial, remaining state claims should also be dismissed); Hassett v. Lemay Bank & Trust Co., 851 F.2d 1127, 1130 (8th Cir. 1988) (where federal claims have been over dismissed, pendent district claims courts as a may decline of

jurisdiction discretion").

state

"matter

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because the

5

complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

An appropriate order shall accompany this memorandum and order. Dated this 15th day of January, 2010

/s/ Jean C. Hamilton UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6