Coleman v. Hakala et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 12 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis under 42:1983 (prisoner) filed by Plaintiff Alonzo Dwayne Coleman motion is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, as plaintiff has paid the filing fee in this action , he is responsible for serving the complaint on defendants.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), defendants shall reply to plaintiff's claims against them in their individual capacitieswithin the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's claims against defendants in their official capacities will be DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date their Answer or other responsive pleading is due to the Court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), defendants shall reply to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is assigned to Track 5B: Prisoner Standard. A separate Order of Partial Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 7/15/13. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
ALONZO DWAYNE COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL HAKALA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13CV61 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for review of plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under § 1915A, the Court is required to review the complaint
and dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief.
After reviewing the complaint, the Court has determined that the complaint
should not be dismissed at this time. Indeed, plaintiff alleges that defendants, who
are all current or former Corizon, Inc. employees or Missouri Department of
Corrections Employees, were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition
relating to his polycystic liver disease.
However, plaintiff brings his claims against defendants in both their individual
and official capacities. His claims against defendants in their official capacities will
be dismissed, without prejudice. Naming an official in his or her official capacity is

the equivalent of naming the entity that employs the official. Will v. Michigan Dep’t
of State Police. 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)1. To state a claim against Corizon, Inc.,
plaintiff must allege that a policy or custom of Corizon was responsible for the
alleged constitutional violation. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,
690-91 (1978). The instant complaint does not contain any allegations that a policy
or custom of Corizon was responsible for the alleged violations of plaintiff’s
constitutional rights. As a result, plaintiff’s claims against defendants in their official
capacities will be dismissed.
The Court will order defendants to reply to plaintiff’s claims against them in
their individual capacities. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, as plaintiff has paid the filing fee in this
action, he is responsible for serving the complaint on defendants.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2),
defendants shall reply to plaintiff’s claims against them in their individual capacities

1

“[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are
‘persons’ under § 1983.” Will, 491 U.S. at 71. As a result, plaintiff’s claims against
the MDOC employees in their official capacities fail to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
-2-

within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s claims against defendants in
their official capacities will be DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. #12] is DENIED AS MOOT, as plaintiff has already paid the filing
fee in this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date their
Answer or other responsive pleading is due to the Court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
4(m), defendants shall reply to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is assigned to Track 5B: Prisoner
Standard.
A separate Order of Partial Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and
Order.
Dated this 15th day of July, 2013.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-