Daniel v. Scott County Jail et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 5/7/15. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
MARTIN AKEEM DANIEL,
SCOTT COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
No. 1:15CV60 ACL
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
He alleges that several officers at the Scott County Jail failed to protect him from assault by
other inmates. The allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As a result,
the case is dismissed without further proceedings.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to dismiss a prisoner complaint filed in
forma pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a complaint must plead more than “legal
conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported
by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A plaintiff
must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of
Plaintiff alleges that he was placed in a pod where attacks by other inmates was frequent.
He filed several grievances requesting to be moved to a different pod. Eventually, he was
attacked, and he claims that defendants Kendal Unknown and Kaley Unknown watched him
being attacked for about five minutes before they intervened. He also claims that defendants
Tina Unknown, Nate Unknown, Zack Unknown, Christina Unknown, Scott Unknown, James
Unknown, Sam Unknown, Trey Unknown, Ciara Unknown, Amy Unknown, John Unknown,
and Sheriff Rick Walter knew about the previous attacks and failed to do anything to protect
him. Plaintiff sues defendants in their official capacities only.
Plaintiff did not name Scott County Jail as a defendant in his amended complaint.
Therefore, the Jail is dismissed.
The Court previously advised plaintiff that suing defendants in their official capacities 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). The Court warned plaintiff that his complaint
failed to state a claim because he did not allege that a policy or custom of a government entity
was responsible for the alleged constitutional violations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services,
436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). The Court instructed plaintiff to file an amended complaint, and
the Court told plaintiff how to sue defendants in their individual capacities. In his amended
complaint, plaintiff says that he is suing defendants in their official capacities only. And he does
not state that a custom or policy of a government entity led to the alleged violations of his rights.
As a result, the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 7th day of May, 2015.
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?