Griffin v. St. Charles County Sheriff's Department et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall mail to plaintiff a copy of the Court's Civil Compla int form. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. ( Response to Court due by 1/5/2012.) Signed by Honorable Catherine D. Perry on 12/6/2011. (CBL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BRIANNA J. GRIFFIN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ST. CHARLES COUNTY SHERIFF’S )
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
No. 4:11CV1967 CDP
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Brianna Griffin for leave to
commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. Upon consideration of the financial information provided with the motion,
the Court finds that plaintiff is financially unable to pay any portion of the filing fee.
As a result, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915. Additionally, the Court will order plaintiff to submit an amended
complaint.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
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 for alleged false arrest.
Named as defendants are the St. Charles County Sheriff’s Department (the
“Department”) and Jeff Warner, a deputy for the Department. Plaintiff alleges that
on April 11, 2006, Warner arrested her for dealing drugs under false pretenses.
Plaintiff was a minor at that time, and she was arrested at her high school. Plaintiff
claims that Warner arrested her in retaliation for her having previously complained
about his behavior towards her. Plaintiff says that Warner never gave her a Miranda
warning, and she asserts that he made a false statement to the court that drugs found
on other students belonged to her.1
1
Plaintiff, by and through her next friend and mother Elizabeth McCray, filed lawsuits based
on the April 11, 2006, events on two previous occasions. On February 1, 2008, she filed a § 1983
suit against the defendants named in this action as well as the School District, the Juvenile Justice
Center, various minor children, school administrators, juvenile officers, attorneys, and judges.
McCray v. N.D.B., 4:08CV198 CDP (E.D. Mo.). The Court dismissed that case without prejudice
on March 7, 2008, because the complaint did not comply with this Court’s local rules or the Federal
-2-
Discussion
Plaintiff’s claim against the Department is legally frivolous because it 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.”).
The complaint is silent as to whether defendant Warner is being sued in his
official or individual capacity. 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. 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
Rules of Civil Procedure. On August 8, 2008, she filed a § 1983 suit against the School District, the
St. Charles County Sheriff, and the Juvenile Justice Center. B.J.G. v. Francis Howell School Dist.,
4:08CV1178 CDP (E.D. Mo.). On May 6, 2010, the Court dismissed that case with prejudice after
finding that the School District and the Juvenile Justice Center were not proper defendants and,
additionally, that the complaint failed to state a claim against the Sheriff. The Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals subsequently affirmed this Court’s ruling. B.J.G. v. St. Charles County Sheriff, No. 102060, slip op. (8th Cir. Nov. 9, 2010). Neither plaintiff nor her mother were represented by counsel
in either of the two previous lawsuits.
Additionally, simultaneously with the filing of the instant lawsuit, plaintiff filed two other
lawsuits based on the April 11, 2006, events. In Griffin v. Francis Howell School Dist., 4:11CV1966
CDP (E.D. Mo.), plaintiff brought suit against the School District and three school officials for their
alleged role in her detention. And in Griffin v. Juvenile Justice Center, 4:11CV1968 CDP (E.D.
Mo.), she brought suit against the Justice Center and two of its employees for their part.
-3-
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 defendant Warner.
Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will allow plaintiff to file an
amended complaint before it dismisses this action. Plaintiff shall have thirty days
from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is warned that the
filing of an amended complaint replaces the original complaint, and claims that are
not realleged are deemed abandoned. E.g., In re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost
Recovery Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005). If plaintiff fails to file
an amended complaint within thirty days, the Court will dismiss this action without
prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall mail to plaintiff a copy of
the Court’s Civil Complaint form
-4-
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended complaint
no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to timely file an amended
complaint, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.
Dated this 6th day of December, 2011.
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-5-
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?