Chapple v. Chastain et al
Filing
6
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 plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $2.17 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Ord er. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to Clerk, United States District Court, and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that theremittance is for an original proceeding . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall submit an amended complaint, on a court-provided form, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall mail to plaintiff a copy of the Courts form Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint.( Initial Partial Filing Fee due by 8/3/2012.). Signed by Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig on 7/5/12. (JWJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DWAYNE CHAPPLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES W. CHASTAIN, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:12CV912 AGF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff (registration no.
1000689), an inmate at Northeast Correctional Center, for leave to commence this
action without payment of the required filing fee [Doc. #2]. For the reasons stated
below, the Court finds that plaintiff does not have sufficient funds to pay the entire
filing fee and will assess an initial partial filing fee of $2.17. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1).
Additionally, the Court will order plaintiff to submit an amended
complaint.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), a prisoner bringing a civil action in forma
pauperis is required to pay the full amount of the filing fee. If the prisoner has
insufficient funds in his or her prison account to pay the entire fee, the Court must
assess and, when funds exist, collect an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the
greater of (1) the average monthly deposits in the prisoner’s account, or (2) the average
monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the prior six-month period. After
payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner is required to make monthly
payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s
account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of the prisoner will
forward these monthly payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the
prisoner’s account exceeds $10, until the filing fee is fully paid. Id.
Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit and a certified copy of his prison account
statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the submission of his
complaint. A review of plaintiff’s account indicates an average monthly deposit of
$10.83, and an average monthly balance of $0.00. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to
pay the entire filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee
of $2.17, which is 20 percent of plaintiff’s average monthly deposit.
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, 112 S. Ct. 1728,
-2-
1733 (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, 127 S. Ct.
1955, 1974 (2007).
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the
Eighth Amendment, against Charles Chastain (Doctor), Roasalie Shackelford (Medical
Director), Shanta Pribble (Nursing Director), Angela Chandler (Health Service
Administrator), Rebecca Henson, Melody Griffin (Nurse) and Stan Jackson (Assistant
Warden). The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
Plaintiff alleges that he has been diagnosed with avascular necrosis in his hip
bones and is in need of a bi-lateral hip replacement. He claims that the bones in his
hips are “dying and decaying” and this is causing him extreme pain and substantial
difficulty ambulating. Plaintiff asserts, generally, that defendants have failed to provide
him with proper treatment for his condition, and he claims in a conclusory fashion that
defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He claims
-3-
that he is in need a a bi-lateral hip replacement but that defendants have refused his
request.
Discussion
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 State of
Missouri and/or Correctional Medical Services (“CMS”). Will v. Michigan Dep’t of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). “[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their
official capacity are ‘persons’ under § 1983,” thus, the defendants employed by the
State of Missouri cannot be held liable as the complaint is currently written. Id.
Similarly, the complaint as it now stands fails to state a claim against the CMS
employees because it does not allege that a policy or custom of CMS is responsible for
the alleged constitutional violations. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,
690-91 (1978).
-4-
Additionally, because plaintiff has only stated generally that he believes he has
been unconstitutionally denied medical care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but
has not indicated which of the individual defendants he believes is responsible for the
alleged constitutional violations, his complaint fails to state a claim for relief. “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 defendant was personally involved in or
directly responsible for incidents that injured plaintiff); Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968
(8th Cir. 1995) (respondeat superior theory inapplicable in § 1983 suits); Keeper v.
King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting that general responsibility for
supervising operations of prison is insufficient to establish personal involvement
required to support liability under § 1983); Woods v. Goord, 1998 WL 740782, at *6
(S.D.N.Y. October 23, 1998) (receiving letters or complaints does not render prison
officials personally liable under § 1983). 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.
-5-
Because of the serious nature of the allegations in the complaint, the Court will
not dismiss the case at this time. Instead, the Court will give plaintiff the opportunity
to file an amended complaint on a court-provided form. Plaintiff shall have 30 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 30 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 plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of
$2.17 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make
his remittance payable to “Clerk, United States District Court,” and to include upon it:
(1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the
remittance is for an original proceeding.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall submit an amended complaint,
on a court-provided form, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Memorandum and Order.
-6-
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall mail to plaintiff a copy of
the Court’s form Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint.
Dated 5th day of July, 2012.
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-7-
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?