Coleman v. Stubblefield et al
Filing
14
ORDER MEMORANDUM OPINION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs second motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 11] is DENIED as moot. An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order. Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 11/16/11. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN H. COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
GENE STUBBLEFIELD, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:11CV1759 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s amended complaint. Plaintiff, an
inmate at the St. Louis City Justice Center, brings this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against prison officials for alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
Plaintiff’s original complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
because it sued defendants in their official capacities only and failed to allege that a
policy or custom of the City of St. Louis caused a violation of his civil rights. The
amended complaint fails to state a claim for the same reason. As a result, the Court
will dismiss this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to review the
amended complaint and to dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. 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’s amended complaint is substantially similar to his original complaint.
Plaintiff alleges that he was placed in danger because he was housed in a two-person
cell with two other inmates for a period of two months. Plaintiff says he told
defendants Troupe and Noel that he needed to be placed in protective custody
because he was in danger from other inmates.
Plaintiff claims that he is a
schizophrenic, and he alleges that being housed in an overcrowded cell made his
symptoms worse. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Stubblefield has failed to respond
to his grievances. Plaintiff asserts that defendant Goosh maced him because he
refused to go into his cell with the other inmates. Plaintiff further asserts that Goosh
placed him into administrative segregation for five days without clothing, a mattress,
or a blanket. Plaintiff says he also went without food for two days and was denied
medical treatment.
-2-
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
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, in this case the City of St.
Louis. 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 the City of St. Louis 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.
Because plaintiff has already been given a chance to cure his pleadings, this
action will be dismissed without further proceedings.
Accordingly,
-3-
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s second motion to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. 11] is DENIED as moot.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 16th day of November, 2011.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?