Robinson v. Jasimane
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue, because the second amended 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). Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 6/3/16. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JASIMANE FLENNOY, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s second amended
complaint [Doc. 12]. For the reasons stated below, 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).
In reviewing a pro se complaint under ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give
the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972). 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 Second Amended Complaint
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Southeast Correctional Center (ASECC@), brings this
action for the violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The
named defendants are Jasimane Flennoy (Correctional Officer) and Paula Reed
(SECC Assistant Warden). Plaintiff alleges that “the staff at SECC has been
harassing [him] making snide remarks at [his] cell door ever since [he] filed a
complaint for sexual harassment against Jasimane Flennoy.” Plaintiff claims that
defendant Reed issued him a false conduct violation in retaliation for complaining
about Flennoy and for filing a lawsuit against Flennoy. Plaintiff states that Flennoy
was fired because of her treatment towards him, and he complains that he does not
feel safe at SECC.
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 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, in this case the State of
Missouri. See Will v. Michigan Dep=t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
A[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are >persons= under
' 1983.@ Id. As a result, the second amended complaint is legally frivolous and
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
As additional grounds for dismissing this action, the Court notes that plaintiff
has failed to assert any non-conclusory claims against defendant Flennoy. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (legal conclusions and threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action that are supported by mere conclusory
statements are not entitled to the assumption of truth); Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d
895, 915 (9th Cir. 2001) (§ 1983 liability arises only upon a showing of personal
participation by defendant); Ellis v. Norris, 179 F.3d 1078, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999) (§
1983 claimant must allege facts supporting individual defendant=s personal
involvement or responsibility for unconstitutional action); Madewell v. Roberts, 909
F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990) (liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and
direct responsibility for, the alleged deprivation of rights); Martin v. Sargent, 780
F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (claim not cognizable under § 1983 where plaintiff
fails to allege defendant was personally involved in or directly responsible for
incidents that injured plaintiff).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause
process to issue, because the second amended 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.
day of _____June___________, 2016.
\s\ Jean C. Hamilton
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?