Williams v. Lombardi et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 3] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve process on defendants Corizon, Inc., Michael Hakala, Cleveland Rayford, a nd Becky Lizenbee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants George Lombardi and Ian Wallace are DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to enjoin defendants from retaliatingagainst him [ECF No. 2] is MOOT. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 8/8/16. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CORNELIUS WILLIAMS, JR.,
GEORGE LOMBARDI, et al.,
No. 1:16-CV-102 RLW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The motion is granted.
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 was incarcerated at the Southeast Correctional Center when he filed this action,
but he has since been released. He alleges that he has Hepatitis C and that Drs. Hakala and
Rayford refused to give him treatment even though is ammonia levels were elevated. He claims
that defendant Lizenbee, a nurse, did not always document his complaints and interfered with his
treatment. And he alleges that Corizon, Inc., had a policy of refusing treatment to Hepatitis C
patients because it is expensive.
Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants Lombardi and Wallace liable as a result of their
The Court will direct the Clerk to serve process on defendants Hakala, Rayford,
Lizenbee, and Corizon.
"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."); Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174, 176
(8th Cir. 1995) ("a general responsibility for supervising the operations of a prison is insufficient
to establish the personal involvement required to support liability."). Plaintiff's allegations do
not show that Lombardi or Wallace were directly responsible for the alleged harm. Therefore,
these defendants are dismissed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 3] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve process on defendants
Corizon, Inc., Michael Hakala, Cleveland Rayford, and Becky Lizenbee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants George Lombardi and Ian Wallace are
DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to enjoin defendants from retaliating
against him [ECF No. 2] is MOOT.
An Order of Partial Dismissal will be filed separately.
this~ day of August, 2016.
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?