O'Quinn v. Williams et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. [Doc. 2] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for service of process is DENIED as moot. [Doc. 3] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 10/16/2012. (KSM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JEFFREY O’QUINN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:12-CV-1734 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and initial review of the complaint. Based on plaintiff’s financial information, the Court finds that
he should be permitted to proceed without prepayment of the statutory filing fee. Additionally, after
reviewing the complaint, the Court finds that the case should be dismissed for improper venue.
The Complaint
Plaintiff, an Illinois resident, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Named as
defendants are Scott Williams (Collinsville, Illinois, Police Chief), John Miller (Mayor of
Collinsville), Thomas Gibbons (Madison County, Illinois, Prosecutor), John Rekowski (Madison
County Public Defender), Allen Dunstin (Madison County Board Chairman), and Ann Callis (Chief
Judge of the Madison County Circuit Court).
Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongly arrested and physically abused by an unnamed police
officer. Plaintiff says he was held in jail for four days, during which he was denied his regular
medications. Plaintiff does not allege facts demonstrating that the named defendants were directly
involved in the alleged violations of plaintiff’s rights. He appears to be alleging that they are
responsible because they are in positions of authority in Collinsville and Madison County.

Standard
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) states, “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying
venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such
case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”
Additionally, under 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).
Discussion
The proper venue in this case is the Southern District of Illinois. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
The question in this action is whether it should be dismissed for improper venue or whether the
interests of justice require that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.
The interests of justice do not require that the case be transferred because the allegations in
the complaint are frivolous and malicious. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,
690-91 (1978) (official capacity suits must allege policy or custom of governmental entity);
Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990) (liability under § 1983 requires direct

-2-

involvement by named defendants); Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003)
(judicial immunity); Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261, 1266 (8th Cir. 1996) (prosecutorial
immunity); Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (public defenders do not act under
“color of law”). It is apparent from the allegations that plaintiff’s intent is to harass governmental
officials rather than pursuing a cognizable right. As a result, the Court will dismiss this action for
improper venue.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. [Doc. 2]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for service of process is DENIED as
moot. [Doc. 3]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

__________________________________
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this

16th

day of October, 2012.

-3-