Williams v. Stevens et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 7 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis under 42:1983 (prisoner) filed by Plaintiff Shawn Williams, 8 PRO SE MOTION filed by Plaintiff Shawn Williams motion is GRANTED..IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaint iff 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 4/6/2016.)IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 3/7/16. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
UNKNOWN STEVENS, et al.,
No. 1:16CV11 JAR
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. Additionally, the Court finds that this case must be summarily
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.
Plaintiff, who is currently detained in the Ste. Genevieve Detention Center, brings this
action against Unknown Lieutenant Stevens, Unknown Captain Mulcahy, and the Cape
Girardeau County Jail. He alleges that he was denied a second set of bedding and change of
clothes. He also claims he was denied a free phone call. Plaintiff says he filed grievances,
which were denied by Stevens. And he says he filed grievance appeals, which were denied by
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.”).
“Only persons who cause or participate in the [constitutional] violations are responsible.
Ruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the
violation.” George v. Smith, 507 F. 3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Additionally,
Petitioner has not alleged Stevens or Mulcahy’s direct involvement in the alleged denials of his
rights. As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Moreover, plaintiff has not alleged that he was denied necessary clothing or basic
hygiene items. And he does not have a constitutional right to free telephone calls, absent
irreparable harm or prejudice. Aswegan v. Henry, 981 F.2d 313, 314 (8th Cir. 1992). Petitioner
has not alleged either harm or prejudice. Therefore, the complaint fails to state a plausible claim
for this reason as well.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 7] is GRANTED.
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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis without a certified account statement [ECF No. 8] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 7th day of March, 2016.
JOHN A. ROSS
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?