Robinson v. Greenwell et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis under 42:1983 (prisoner) filed by Plaintiff Michael Robinson motion is GRANTED( Amended/Supplemental Pleadings due by 3/8/2016. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1.00 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, Initial Partial Filing Fee due by 3/10/2016.). Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 2/9/16. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
PEMISCOT COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15CV240 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 $1.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Additionally, the Court will order plaintiff
to file an amended complaint.
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. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] a

context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
common sense. Id. at 679.
The Complaint
Plaintiff alleges that he was not taken to a needed surgery, which resulted in the partial
loss of vision in one eye. He further alleges that he was assaulted, denied medications, and
exposed to mold. He does not name any individuals as defendants.
Discussion
Plaintiff’s claim against the Jail is legally frivolous because it cannot be sued. Ketchum
v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992) (departments or subdivisions of
local government are “not juridical entities suable as such.”).
Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will allow plaintiff to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiff is warned that the filing of an amended complaint replaces the original
complaint, and so he must include each and every one of his claims in the amended
complaint. E.g., In re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d
922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005). Any claims from the original complaint that are not included in
the amended complaint will be considered abandoned. Id. Plaintiff must allege how each
and every defendant is directly responsible for the alleged harm.

In order to sue

defendants in their individual capacities, plaintiff must specifically say so in the complaint.
If plaintiff fails to sue defendants in their individual capacities, this action may be subject
to dismissal.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 3] is GRANTED.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1.00
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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must file an amended complaint no later
than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order.
Dated this 9th day of February, 2016.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3