Saling v. St. Francois County Jail and Sheriff's Department

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel [Doc. 4 ] is DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable Catherine D. Perry on August 2, 2011. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DALLAS C. SALING,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY JAIL, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

No. 4:11CV1058 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on review of plaintiff’s amended complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Upon review, I find that the amended complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to
prosecute this action. As a result, I will dismiss this action without prejudice.
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).
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged medical
mistreatment. Named as defendants are the St. Francois County Jail, Unknown
Ramsey, Darren Cook, Rodney Harris, K. Glore, Richard Ett, and Unknown Dear.
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied several medications during his detention
ad the St. Francois County Jail (the “Jail”). Plaintiff asserts that defendant Harris, a
nurse, sometimes denies him “life sustaining medications.” Plaintiff also asserts that
Unknown Ramsey was aware of his list of required medications. The complaint
contains no further allegations against any of the named defendants.
Plaintiff’s claim against the Jail is legally frivolous because the Jail is not a
suable entity. Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 81 (8th Cir.
1992) (departments or subdivisions of local government are “not juridical entities
suable as such.”); Catlett v. Jefferson County, 299 F. Supp. 2d 967, 968-69 (E.D. Mo.
2004) (same).
The complaint is silent as to whether defendants are being sued in their official
or individual capacities. Where a “complaint is silent about the capacity in which
[plaintiff] is suing defendant, [a district court must] interpret the complaint as
-2-

including only official-capacity claims.” Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College,
72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995); Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1989).
Naming a government official in his or her official capacity is the equivalent of
naming the government entity that employs the official. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). To state a claim against a municipality or a
government official in his or her official capacity, plaintiff must allege that a policy
or custom of the government entity is responsible for the alleged constitutional
violation. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). The
instant complaint does not contain any allegations that a policy or custom of a
government entity was responsible for the alleged violations of plaintiff’s
constitutional rights. As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted as to the individual defendants.
“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 also Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (claim not
cognizable under § 1983 where plaintiff fails to allege that defendant was personally
involved in or directly responsible for the incidents that injured plaintiff); Boyd v.
Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995) (respondeat superior theory inapplicable in
§ 1983 suits). In the instant action, plaintiff has not set forth any facts indicating that
-3-

defendants Ramsey, Cook, Glore, Ett, or Dear were directly involved in or personally
responsible for the alleged violations of his constitutional rights. As a result, the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for this reason as
well.
Finally, I previously ordered plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $3.33
no later than July 20, 2011. Plaintiff has failed to pay the fee, and therefore, he has
failed to prosecute this case. As a result, this action will also be dismissed under Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel [Doc.
4] is DENIED as moot.
Dated this 2nd day of August, 2011.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-