Morgan v. Neill et al
Filing
5
OPINION, MEMORANDUM, AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion 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 complaint is legally frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both. An Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 4/13/12. (TRC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT STANLEY MORGAN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK NEILL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:12CV452 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Robert Morgan, Jr., 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 has reviewed the complaint
and will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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. Named as defendants are
Mark Neill, Linda Powers, David Dowd (Circuit Court Judge), Tara Crane (Assistant
Public Defender), Michael Armour (Psychiatrist, St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Center), Ratna Thakur (same), Susan Boyer-Mathi (same), William Tucker (Assistant
Public Defender), and Teresa Bomkamp (Assistant Prosecutor).
Plaintiff alleges that he was maliciously prosecuted in a 1999 criminal action,
for which he was convicted of driving while intoxicated. State v. Morgan, No. 229101709 (22nd Judicial Circuit, St. Louis City). Plaintiff’s sentence was suspended and
plaintiff was placed on probation. Id. Defendant Dowd revoked plaintiff’s probation
on February 16, 2004, and sentence him to incarceration. Id.
-2-
Plaintiff claims that he was sent to the Missouri Department of Mental Health
as a result of the probation revocation. Plaintiff says that he was informed by his
doctors that he would be found incompetent until he accepted treatment for
tuberculosis and Hepatitis B, which he claims he did not have.
Discussion
“Although the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, a district court
may properly dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915[] when
it is apparent the statute of limitations has run.” Myers v. Vogal, 960 F.2d 750, 751
(8th Cir. 1992). Section 1983 claims are analogous to personal injury claims and are
subject to Missouri’s five-year statute of limitations. Sulik v. Taney County, Mo.,
393 F.3d 765, 766-67 (8th Cir. 2005); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(4). The most recent
events alleged in the complaint occurred in 2004. As a result, the complaint is barred
by the statute of limitations.
“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
-3-
§ 1983 suits). In the instant action, plaintiff has not set forth any facts indicating that
any of the named defendants 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.
The complaint is legally frivolous as to defendant Dowd because judges are
“entitled to absolute immunity for all judicial actions that are not ‘taken in a complete
absence of all jurisdiction.’” Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003)
(quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)).
The complaint is legally frivolous as to defendant Bomkamp because where
“the prosecutor is acting as advocate for the state in a criminal prosecution, [] the
prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity.” Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d
1261, 1266 (8th Cir. 1996).
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to
defendants Crane and Tucker because “a public defender does not act under color of
state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant
in a criminal proceeding.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. 2] is GRANTED.
-4-
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause
process to issue upon the complaint because the complaint is legally frivolous or fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both.
An Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 13th day of April, 2012.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
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?