Spencer v. Scott County, Missouri et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 2/11/2015. (JMC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
TROY LYNN SPENCER,
SCOTT COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al.,
No. 1:15CV19 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is
required to review the complaint and to dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that it is
frivolous and must be dismissed.
Plaintiff is a civil detainee at the Southeast Missouri Mental Health Center’s Sexual
Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services (SORTS). On March 19, 2004, plaintiff was
found to be a sexually violent predator by a jury in probate court. Troy Spencer Sexual Predator,
Case No. 33P040100018 (accessed on Case.net). Plaintiff alleges that he has undergone yearly
review of his status as an SVP by a psychiatrist, who found that his pedophilia had not changed.
Plaintiff believes that the psychological reports violate his constitutional rights because they
discuss his medical history. And he claims that defendants, who are all judges, violated his
constitutional rights by denying his requests to be released from confinement. The allegations
regarding the violations of his constitutional rights are wholly conclusory and fail to state any
facts, which if proved, would entitle him to relief.
Plaintiff is not entitled to monetary or declaratory release because defendants are Aentitled
to absolute immunity for all judicial actions that are not >taken in a complete absence of all
jurisdiction.=@ Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Mireles v.
Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)).
Absolute immunity bars not only Plaintiff=s § 1983 claim for damages but also his claims
for injunctive relief. Section 1983 states that “in any action brought against a judicial officer for
an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” Plaintiff has not
alleged or shown that a declaratory decree was violated or that declaratory relief is unavailable.
As a result, this action is legally frivolous.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 11th Day of February, 2015.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?