Hopkins v. Reed et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to be issued upon the amended complaint [Doc. #11] as to defendants Charles Reed, Kimberly Irby, Benny Thurston, and Christopher Cooper in their individual capacities. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in their individual capacities, defendants Charles Reed, Kimberly Irby, Benny Thurston, and Christopher Cooper shall file an answer or other responsive pleading directed to plaintiff's amended complaint w ithin 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 defendants Charles Reed, Kimberly Irby, Benny Thurston ,and Christopher Cooper in their official capacities. 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 Jean C. Hamilton on 11/4/2013. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

LARRY L. HOPKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN REED, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-CV-126-LMB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of plaintiff's amended complaint
[Doc. #11]. For the reasons stated below, the Court will order the Clerk to issue
process on the amended complaint as to all defendants in their individual capacities
and will dismiss this action against them in their official capacities.
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
2

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
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 (SECC), seeks
monetary relief in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against SECC correctional officers
Charles Reed, Kimberly Irby, Benny Thurston, and Christopher Cooper. Plaintiff
alleges that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they physically
assaulted him, failed to protect him, and denied him medical treatment for his serious
physical injuries. Plaintiff is suing defendants in both their individual and official
capacities.
Discussion
A review of the amended complaint indicates that plaintiff has stated actionable
claims for relief against defendants Charles Reed, Kimberly Irby, Benny Thurston,
and Christopher Cooper in their individual capacities relative to the violation of
plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights. Therefore, the Court will order defendants to
3

reply to the amended complaint in their individual capacities. 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, 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. Thus, the amended complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted as to all defendants in their official capacities,
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. #11] as to defendants Charles
Reed, Kimberly Irby, Benny Thurston, and Christopher Cooper in their individual
capacities .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in their individual capacities, defendants
Charles Reed, Kimberly Irby, Benny Thurston, and Christopher Cooper 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.
4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint is DISMISSED,
without prejudice, as to defendants Charles Reed, Kimberly Irby, Benny Thurston,
and Christopher Cooper in their official capacities. 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 4th day of November, 2013.

/s/Jean C. Hamilton
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5