Daniel v. Pemiscot County Jail et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay an initial partial filing fee of $.74 within thirty (30) days fro m 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 remit tance is for an original proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because the allegations are legally frivolous and fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate order of dismissal shall accompany this memorandum and order. (Initial Partial Filing Fee due by 4/22/2016.) Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 3/23/2016. (JMC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
KEVIN DEWAYNE DANIEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
PEMISCOT COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:16-CV-56-SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the motion of Kevin Dewayne Daniel for
leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee. For the
reasons stated below, the court finds that plaintiff does not have sufficient funds to
pay the entire filing fee, and therefore, the motion will be granted. Plaintiff will
be assessed an initial partial filing fee of $.74, which is twenty percent of
plaintiff’s average deposits. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(b)(1). Furthermore, based
upon a review of the complaint, 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 must dismiss a complaint
filed in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
1
upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis in
either law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action is
malicious if it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing the named defendants and
not for the purpose of vindicating a cognizable right.
Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F.
Supp. 458, 461-63 (E.D.N.C. 1987), aff'd 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987).
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).
To determine whether an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, the court must engage in a two-step inquiry. First, the court must
identify the allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of
truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950-51 (2009). These include "legal
conclusions" and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that
are] supported by mere conclusory statements."
Id. at 1949. Second, the court
must determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief.
Id. at
1950-51. This is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw
on its judicial experience and common sense."
Id. at 1950. The plaintiff is
required to plead facts that show more than the "mere possibility of misconduct."
Id. The court must review the factual allegations in the complaint "to determine if
2
they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief."
Id. at 1951. When faced with
alternative explanations for the alleged misconduct, the court may exercise its
judgment in determining whether plaintiff's conclusion is the most plausible or
whether it is more likely that no misconduct occurred.
Id. at 1950, 51-52.
Moreover, 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 (1992).
The Complaint
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Ozark Correctional Center, seeks monetary relief
in this 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 action for constitutional violations that allegedly occurred
during his confinement at the Pemiscot County Jail. Named as defendants are the
Pemiscot County Jail and its employees John Doe (Sheriff), Chad Doe (Jail
Superintendent), Jane Doe (Nurse), Benda Unknown (“Jailer”), and John Doe
(“Jailer”).
Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated in
numerous separate instances during the period of January 11-15, 2016.
Discussion
Plaintiff brings this action against the Jail employees in their official
capacity. See Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th
3
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). Official-capacity suits are tantamount to suits
brought directly against the public entity of which the official is an agent.
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985). To state a claim against a public
entity or a government official in his or her official capacity, a plaintiff must allege
that a policy or custom of the public entity was responsible for the alleged
constitutional violation.
Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 473 (1985); Monell v.
Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). Because plaintiff
does not claim that a public entity=s policy or custom was responsible for the
violation of his constitutional rights, the complaint fails to state a claim or cause of
action under ' 1983 against the defendant Jail employees in their official capacity.
The complaint is also legally frivolous as to defendant Pemiscot County Jail,
because jails are not suable entities.
See Lair v. Norris, 32 Fed. Appx. 175, 2002
WL 496779 (8th Cir. 2002); Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1010
(8th Cir. 1999) (' 1983 suit cannot be brought against state agency), cert.
dismissed, 529 U.S. 1001 (2000); Marsden v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 856 F. Supp.
832, 836 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (jails are not entities amenable to suit).
As additional grounds for dismissing this action, the court notes that, for the
most part, plaintiff has failed to direct his allegations against the named
4
defendants, and he has improperly joined multiple claims against numerous
defendants that do not arise out the same transaction or occurrence. This is not
allowed. See Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995); Jeffers v. Gomez,
267 F.3d 895, 915 (9th Cir. 2001) (§ 1983 liability arises only upon a showing of
personal participation by defendant); 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); Fed.R.Civ.P. 18, 20, and 21.
For these reasons, the court will dismiss this action pursuant to '
1915(e)(2)(B).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay an initial partial filing
fee of $.74 within thirty (30) days from 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.
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or
cause process to issue upon the complaint, because the allegations are legally
frivolous and fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
See 28
U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B).
A separate order of dismissal shall accompany this memorandum and order.
Dated this 23rd day of March, 2016.
_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?