Dovin v. Wofford et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. 4] is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTH ER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because the complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 8/28/12. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JONATHAN DOVIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERICA WOFFORD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12-CV-1390-RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the application of Jonathan Dovin for
leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a). Upon consideration of the financial information provided with the
completed application, the Court finds that plaintiff is financially unable to pay any
portion of the filing fee, and therefore, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. Furthermore, based upon a review of the complaint, the Court finds
that this action should be dismissed 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 may dismiss a complaint filed
in forma pauperis at any time if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who

is immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted 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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).
In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give the
complaint the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff,
unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32
(1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
The Complaint
Plaintiff, a resident at the Southeast Missouri Mental Health Center
("SMMHC") seeks monetary relief in this action against SMMHC employees Erica
Wofford, Diane Hitson, Melissa Ring, Keith Schafer, and Tony Harris. Plaintiff
alleges that on May 23, 2011, he was "in group" and he "was denied reasonable
access to the restroom for [his] bodily functions . . . [and] urinated [him]self in front
of [his] peers."

2

Although plaintiff does not state the basis for filing this action in Federal
Court, the complaint will be liberally construed as having been brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.1
Discussion
Plaintiff is suing defendants in their official capacities. See Egerdahl v.
Hibbing Community College, 72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995)(where a complaint is
silent about defendant’s capacity, Court must interpret the complaint as including
official-capacity claims); 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. See
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.” Id. As such,
the complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
As additional grounds for dismissing this action, the Court finds that plaintiff's
allegations simply do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation and fail to state

To the extent that plaintiff is attempting to bring this action under 28
U.S.C. § 1332, subject matter jurisdiction does not exist, given that the amount in
controversy is unspecified, and plaintiff has insufficiently alleged diversity of
citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
1

3

a claim under § 1983. Moreover, the theory of respondeat superior is inapplicable in
§ 1983 suits. See Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of
counsel [Doc. #4] is DENIED as moot.
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 and
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 28th day of August, 2012.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4