Chapple v. Chastain et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the amended complaint because the amended complaint is legally frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both. An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 8/3/2012. (NCL)

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 review of plaintiff’s amended complaint,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 After carefully reviewing plaintiff’s allegations, the
Court must dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint 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

1

On July 5, 2012, the Court reviewed plaintiff’s original complaint and found it
to be subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Rather than dismiss his complaint,
the Court provided plaintiff with time to amend his pleading in order to properly state
a claim for relief. Pursuant to § 1915, the Court is now obligated to review plaintiff’s
amended pleading for frivolousness, maliciousness and for failure to state a claim.

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,
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 Amended Complaint
Plaintiff, an inmate at Northeast Correctional Center (“NECC”), brings this
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment, against
Charles Chastain (Doctor), Roasalie Shackelford (Medical Director), Melody Griffin
(Nurse) and George Lombardi (Director, Missouri Department of Corrections). The
amended 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
-2-

defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He claims
that he is in need of a bi-lateral hip replacement but that defendants have refused his
request.
Attached to plaintiff’s general statement of his claim are five paragraphs relating
to the four individually named defendants in his amended complaint.
For example, plaintiff asserts that defendant Shackelford lied when she told him
that his medical records, received from Barnes Hospital, failed to indicate that he
needed surgical intervention. Plaintiff also claims, generally, that nurse Shackelford
has made false statements in response to his I.R.R.’s, “allowed” his condition to
worsen, and caused him unnecessary pain and agony.
Plaintiff further asserts that defendant Chastain was aware of his medical
condition, as well as his high pain level when he saw plaintiff on November 14, 2011.
Plaintiff claims that Dr. Chastain knew that plaintiff’s medications were not working,
yet defendant Chastain failed to provide plaintiff with proper treatment and allowed his
hips to decay.
Plaintiff asserts that he attempted to contact defendant Lombardi on November
1, 2011, regarding his medical needs. Plaintiff claims that defendant Lombardi “has
made no attempt to help [him] get the adequate treatment or attention [his] type of
injury needs.”
-3-

Last, plaintiff asserts that defendant Griffin became aware of his medical
condition in November of 2011 through a letter plaintiff wrote to defendant Lombardi.
He states that defendant Griffin responded and that although she appeared to
understand his diagnosis, she failed to intervene to help him get appropriate medical
treatment.
Discussion
Just as plaintiff’s original complaint was lacking, so too is his amended
complaint lacking any indication whether plaintiff is suing defendants in their official
or their 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 under the amended complaint. Id.

-4-

Similarly, the amended complaint 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).
As a result of the aforementioned, the amended complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. As such, this action must be dismissed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause
process to issue upon the amended complaint because the amended complaint is legally
frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both.
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 3rd day of August, 2012.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-