Dukes v. Metro Bus Transfer Center

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 the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complain t, because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action and the complaint fails to state a claim or cause of action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate order of dismissal shall accompany this memorandum and order. Signed by Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig on 5/24/2011. (NCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RODNEY JEROME DUKES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
METRO BUS TRANSFER CENTER,
Defendant.

No. 4:11-CV-384-AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the application of
Rodney Jerome Dukes for leave to commence this action without
payment of the required filing fee.
consideration

of

the

financial

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

information

provided

with

Upon
the

application, the Court finds that plaintiff is financially unable
to pay any portion of the filing fee.

Therefore, plaintiff will be

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
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 at any time 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 immune from such relief.

An action is frivolous if "it

lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

Neitzke v.

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).
In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B),
the

Court

must

construction.

give

the

complaint

the

benefit

of

a

liberal

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 brings this action against Metro Bus Transfer
Center, alleging that he sustained physical injuries to his "back
& tooth" after a Metro bus driver intentionally injured him in the
bus

doors.

Plaintiff

states

that

he

lives

in

Illinois

and

defendant is located in St. Louis; he seeks unspecified monetary
relief.
Plaintiff states that the jurisdictional grounds for
filing this action in federal court are, as follows:

"For the

Honorable Judge and Courts to provide [plaintiff] with some service
to Metro bus 2 week to process delay reason."

The Court will

liberally construe the complaint as having been brought pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332.1

1

Plaintiff does not allege that Metro Bus Transfer Center is
a state actor, nor does it appear to be one, and thus, there can
be no cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Parratt
v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981)(to state § 1983 claim,
plaintiff must first establish that a person acting under color
2

The Court finds that this action should be dismissed for
lack of federal-court subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff has

failed to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement under 28
U.S.C. § 1332.

Moreover, plaintiff has failed to assert any

allegations against defendant Metro Bus Transfer Center.

Although

the Court must liberally construe plaintiff's factual allegations,
it will not supply additional facts or construct a legal theory for
plaintiff that assumes facts that have not been pleaded.
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue
process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because the
Court lacks jurisdiction over this action and the complaint fails
to

state

a

claim

or

cause

of

action.

See

28

U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

of state law committed actions which form the basis of the
complaint), overruled on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474
U.S. 327, 328 (1986). Moreover, plaintiff does not claim that
the instant action arises under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
3

A

separate

order

of

dismissal

shall

accompany

memorandum and order.
Dated this 24th day of May, 2011.

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

this