Richardson v. Stoddard County Jail et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion 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, because the complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 4/17/2015. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
THOMAS EVERRETT
RICHARDSON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
STODDARD COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15-CV-56-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Thomas Everrett Richardson,
Jr. (registration no. N/A) for leave to commence this action without payment of the
required filing fee [Doc. #2]. Because plaintiff is under house arrest, he cannot
obtain a certified inmate account statement, and therefore, the motion will be
granted. Furthermore, based upon a review of the complaint [Doc. #1], the Court
finds that this action should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B).
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 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 Ait lacks an arguable basis in

either law or in fact.@ Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead Aenough
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.

2

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.
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

Haines v. Kerner,

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, 32-33 (1992).
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action for monetary relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983
against Stoddard County Jail, Carl Heffner (Sheriff), and Roy Jones (Head Jailer).
Plaintiff’s allegations arise out of his confinement at the Stoddard County Jail in
2014. Specifically, he claims that he was “seriously hurt” and sustained permanent
injuries on September 30, 2014, and that defendant Roy Jones was negligent in
refusing to take him to the doctor or hospital and in telling plaintiff, “It’s going to be
sore it’s a black eye.” Plaintiff claims that he did not receive any medical attention
until November 7, 2014, after he had been transferred to the Dunklin County Jail.
In addition, plaintiff generally alleges that he “was harassed by the Stoddard County
Jailers” and that he “was flat refused by every official in Stoddard County Jail for
medical attention.”

3

Discussion
Having carefully reviewed the complaint, the Court concludes that dismissal
is warranted under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff brings this action against
defendants Heffner and Jones 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. 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 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 complaint is legally frivolous and
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to defendants Carl Heffner
and Roy Jones.

4

The complaint is also frivolous as to defendant Stoddard County Jail, because
jails are not suable entities. See Lair v. Norris, 32 Fed. Appx. 175, 2002 WL
496779 (8th Cir. 2002); Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1010 (8th Cir.
1999) (' 1983 suit cannot be brought against state agency), cert. dismissed, 529 U.S.
1001 (2000); Marsden v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 856 F. Supp. 832, 836 (S.D.N.Y.
1994) (jails are not entities amenable to suit).
As additional grounds for dismissing this action, the Court notes that mere
negligence does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Daniels v.
Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)
(mere negligence is not cognizable as Eighth Amendment violation); Morton v.
Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 188 n.3 (8th Cir. 1986) (Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
Clause is not implicated by state official=s negligent act causing unintended loss of
or injury to life, liberty, or property).

Moreover, medical malpractice and

inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care do not amount to a
constitutional violation, Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1343 (8th Cir. 1997).
For the above-stated reasons, the Court will dismiss this action under 28
U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B).
Accordingly,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion 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, because the complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B).
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 17th Day of April, 2015.

_______________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6