Eatmond v. State of Missouri

Filing 11

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #9] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's original motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #8] i s DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue, because the complaint is legally frivolous and fails 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. 8 9 Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 8/19/13. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
RODERICK EATMOND,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:13CV65 NAB

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Roderick Eatmond
(registration no. N/A)1 for leave to commence this action without payment of the
required filing fee. For the following reasons, the Court will grant plaintiff’s motion
and will not assess an initial partial filing fee in this action. In addition, the Court
will dismiss this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
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

1

Plaintiff was a prisoner at the Moberly Correctional Center when he filed
the instant action in July 2013; however, he presently is not incarcerated.

immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if “it 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 “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). 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 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 proffered conclusion is the most plausible or whether
it is more likely that no misconduct occurred. Id. at 1950-52.
2

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, 3233 (1992).
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against defendant State of
Missouri. Plaintiff’s allegations merely state that he and another individual are soon
to be married. For relief, plaintiff states, “Over turn this case. I would like to be off
papers.”
Discussion
Having carefully reviewed the complaint, the Court concludes that this action
is legally frivolous. The State of Missouri is not a “person” for purposes of a § 1983
action and is absolutely immune from liability under § 1983. See Will v. Michigan
Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63 (1989). Moreover, plaintiff’s allegations fail
to state a claim or cause of action under § 1983. For these reasons, this action will
be dismissed, without prejudice.
In accordance with the foregoing,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. #9] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's original motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #8] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause
process to issue, because the complaint is legally frivolous and fails 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 19th day of August, 2013.

_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4