Aldridge v. Wallace et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 5] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1.70 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to "Clerk, United States District Court," and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for a n original proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for emergency injunctive relief [ECF No. 4] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. ( Initial Partial Filing Fee due by 10/29/2015.) Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 9/29/2015. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
GEORGE ALDRIDGE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
IAN WALLACE, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:15CV159 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed plaintiff’s financial information, the Court
assesses a partial initial filing fee of $1.70, which is twenty percent of his average
monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a
“mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 679. “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678.

The Complaint
Plaintiff sues Ian Wallace, the Warden at the Southeast Correctional Center
(“SECC”); Corizon Health Services (“Corizon”); SECC; and the Department of
Corrections (the “Department”). Plaintiff’s allegations are entirely vague and conclusory,
and he does not allege anything specific against Wallace. Plaintiff sues Wallace in his
individual and official capacities.
Plaintiff frames most of his allegations as questions, such as whether prisoners
have a right to access a law library or receive health care? Plaintiff alleges that he does
not have any shoes, but he does not allege who is responsible for this deprivation. He
also alleges that he does not have stamps and that he has not received any medication for
his high blood pressure. Plaintiff says he feels his life is in danger because he tried to
stab a guard who is now a captain. However, he does not allege that he has been
threatened by any prison officials.
Discussion
Plaintiff’s hypothetical questions are not actionable.
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.
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. As a result, the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against defendant
Wallace in his official capacity. The complaint fails to state a claim against SECC and
the Department for this reason as well.
2

“Liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the
alleged deprivation of rights.” Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir.
1990); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“Because vicarious liability is
inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each
Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has
violated the Constitution.”). In the instant action, plaintiff has not set forth any facts
indicating that defendant Wallace was directly involved in or personally responsible for
the alleged violations of his constitutional rights. As a result, the complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted against Wallace in his individual capacity.
To state a claim against Corizon, plaintiff must allege that a policy or custom of
Corizon led to a serious medical injury. Sanders v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972,
95-76 (8th Cir. 1993). There are no such allegations in the complaint, and therefore,
plaintiff’s allegations against Corizon are frivolous.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
[ECF No. 5] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of
$1.70 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his
remittance payable to “Clerk, United States District Court,” and to include upon it: (1) his
name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance
is for an original proceeding.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for emergency injunctive
relief [ECF No. 4] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 29th day of September, 2015.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4