Freeman v. Adams et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to be issued upon the amended complaint [Doc. #8] as to defendant Frankie Adams in his individual capacity only. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in his indivi dual capacity, defendant Frankie Adams shall file an answer or other responsive pleading directed to plaintiff's amended complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice, as to defendant Frankie Adams in his official capacity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court's differentiated case management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (standard prisoner actions). A separate order directing the dismissal of specific claims will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 8/27/2012. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
PAUL FREEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANKIE ADAMS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:12-CV-86-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of plaintiff's amended complaint
[Doc. #8].
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a complaint
filed in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 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 is malicious if it is
undertaken for the purpose of harassing the named defendants and not for the purpose
of vindicating a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 461-63
(E.D.N.C. 1987), aff'd 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987). 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. 544,570
(2007).
To determine whether an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, the Court must engage in a two-step inquiry. First, the Court must identify
the allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950-51 (2009).

These include "legal

conclusions" and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are]
supported by mere conclusory statements." Id. at 1949. Second, the Court must
determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 1950-51.
This is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 1950. The plaintiff is required to
plead facts that show more than the "mere possibility of misconduct." Id. The Court
must review the factual allegations in the complaint "to determine if they plausibly
suggest an entitlement to relief."

Id. at 1951.

When faced with alternative

explanations for the alleged misconduct, the Court may exercise its judgment in
determining whether plaintiff's conclusion is the most plausible or whether it is more
likely that no misconduct occurred. Id. at 1950, 51-52.
Moreover, in reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court
must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404
2

U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of
the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
The Amended Complaint
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Southeast Correctional Center, seeks monetary and
injunctive relief in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against defendant Frankie Adams
(Sikeston police officer). Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated his Fourth, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendment rights when he (1) stopped and frisked plaintiff and
falsely arrested him without probable cause, resulting in plaintiff's wrongful
imprisonment; (2) physically assaulted plaintiff and committed acts of police
brutality; and (3) repeatedly and deliberately labeled plaintiff as a snitch or informant,
thereby causing plaintiff substantial physical and emotional injury and placing
plaintiff's life and safety in jeopardy. In addition, plaintiff states a pendent state-law
claim for slander. Plaintiff is suing defendant Adams in both his individual and
official capacities.
Discussion
A review of the amended complaint indicates that plaintiff has stated actionable
claims for relief against defendant Frankie Adams in his individual capacity relative
to the violation of plaintiff's Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as
3

well as the state-law claim for slander. Said claims survive review under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), and therefore, the Court will order defendant Frankie Adams to reply
to the amended complaint in his individual capacity. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2).
Naming a government official in his or her official capacity is the equivalent
of naming the government entity that employs the official. See Will v. Michigan
Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). To state a claim against a municipality
or a government official in his or her official capacity, a plaintiff must allege that a
policy or custom of the government entity is responsible for the alleged constitutional
violation. Monell v. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). The
instant amended complaint does not contain any allegations that a policy or custom
of a government entity was responsible for the alleged violations of plaintiff's
constitutional rights. As a result, the amended complaint is legally frivolous and fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to defendant Frankie Adams in
his official capacity, and the Court will order that all said claims be dismissed without
prejudice.
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause
process to be issued upon the amended complaint [Doc. #8] as to defendant Frankie
Adams in his individual capacity only.
4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in his individual capacity, defendant
Frankie Adams shall file an answer or other responsive pleading directed to plaintiff’s
amended complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule
12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint is DISMISSED,
without prejudice, as to defendant Frankie Adams in his official capacity. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court's differentiated case
management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (standard prisoner actions).
A separate order directing the dismissal of specific claims will be filed
separately.
Dated this 27th day of August, 2012.

_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5