Mosley v. Wallace et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to issue process on the complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's official-capacity claims are DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 8/3/2017. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
DEVIN MOSLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
IAN WALLACE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-CV-297 ACL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s amended complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court will issue process on the defendants.
However, plaintiff’s official-capacity claims are dismissed.
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, 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.
When reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court accepts
the well-pled facts as true.

Furthermore, the Court liberally construes the

allegations.
The Complaint
On April 2, 2014, another inmate threw a hot, liquid substance onto
plaintiff’s face, neck, chest, and arms, causing first and second degree burns. He
alleges that each of the defendants had direct knowledge of the injuries but refused
to provide him with any medical treatment.

He suffered permanent injuries,

including disfigurement and vision loss.
Discussion
The complaint states a plausible claim for relief against the defendants in
their individual capacities. As a result, the Court will order the Clerk to serve
process on the complaint.
Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims must be dismissed.

Naming a

government official in his or her official capacity is the equivalent of naming the
government entity that employs the official.
2

Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State

Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims against the
Missouri Department of Corrections’ defendants are barred by sovereign
immunity. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985); Murphy v.
Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1997). And plaintiff’s official-capacity
claims against the Corizon defendants are frivolous because he has not alleged that
an official policy or custom of Corizon was responsible for his injuries. Monell v.
Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to issue process on
the complaint.1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s official-capacity claims are
DISMISSED.
Dated this 3rd day of August, 2017.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendants Ian Wallace, Bill Stange, Mina Massey, and George Lombardi should
be served in accordance with the Court’s waiver agreement with the State of
Missouri. The remaining defendants should be served according to its agreement
with Corizon, Inc.
1

3