Williams v. Funk et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 10/31/11. (TRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
RONALD WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN FUNK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:11CV59 JCH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s amended complaint. The Court has
reviewed the amended complaint and has determined that it fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. As a result, the Court will dismiss this action.
Standard
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 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); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31
(1992). 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). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not plead “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007).
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several officials at the
Northeast Correctional Center (“NECC”). Plaintiff’s allegations are vague, conclusory,
and almost entirely fail to specify which defendant allegedly violated his rights.
Plaintiff asserts that he has been denied his rights because he is a sex offender, but he
fails to state any facts that would show a constitutional violation. Plaintiff’s only
allegations pertaining to any particular defendant are that defendant Prudden did not
resolve grievances in his favor and that defendant Cook made offensive statements
towards him.
Discussion
Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory statements fail to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted because they do not contain enough facts to state a plausible cause of
action. Id.
“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)
-2-

(citations omitted). As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim against defendant
Prudden.
Offensive language is not a constitutional violation. E.g., Martin v. Sargent, 780
F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985). As a result, plaintiff’s claim against defendant Cook
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Because the Court has previously afforded plaintiff the opportunity to amend his
complaint to correct defects, the Court will dismiss this action without further
proceedings.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, without
prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Dated this 31st day of October, 2011.

/s/Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-