Clark v. St. Charles County Sheriff's Department
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 4 , 2 ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #4] is DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because the complaint is legally frivolous and failsto state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 9/14/12. (CEL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
RONALD DAVID CLARK,
ST. CHARLES COUNTY SHERIFF'S
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the application of Ronald David Clark 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. Therefore, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
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, 570 (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
Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in this action against defendant St. Charles County
Plaintiff alleges that St. Charles sheriff deputies racially
discriminated against him and assaulted him.
Although plaintiff has failed to state the jurisdictional grounds for filing this
action in Federal Court, the Court will liberally construe the complaint as having been
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Having carefully reviewed plaintiff's allegations, the Court concludes that the
complaint is legally frivolous. Sheriff’s departments are not suable entities. See, e.g.,
Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992) (departments
or subdivisions of local government are “not juridical entities suable as such”); Catlett
v. Jefferson County, 299 F. Supp. 2d 967, 968-69 (E.D. Mo. 2004) (same); Dean v.
Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214-15 (11th Cir. 1992)("[s]heriff's departments and police
departments are not usually considered legal entities subject to suit").
In accordance with the foregoing,
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 14th day of September, 2012.
/s/ Jean C. Hamilton
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?