Rudolph v. Jefferson County Jail

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall docket this case as Patrick Rudolph v. Jefferson County Jail, Vernon Martin, III, Unknown Jordan, Unknown Williams, Oliver G. Boyer, and Unknown Litton. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED t hat defendants Vernon Martin III, Unknown Jordan, and Unknown Williams, in their individual capacities, shall timely file a responsive pleading directed to plaintiffs amended complaint [ECF No. 7]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to defendants Jeffers on County Jail, Oliver G. Boyer, and Unknown Litton, the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the amended complaint, because the allegations are legally frivolous and fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court's differentiated case management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (standard prisoner actions). A separate Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 3/4/13. (LAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
PATRICK RUDOLPH,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12-CV-1780-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of plaintiff's first amended
complaint [ECF No. 7] and supplement [ECF No. 10]. For the reasons stated below,
the Court will (1) order defendants Vernon Martin III, Unknown Jordan, and
Unknown Williams to file a responsive pleading to the amended complaint; and (2)
dismiss this action without prejudice against defendants Jefferson County Jail, Oliver
G. Boyer, and Unknown Litton.
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 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 in either law or

in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (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). To determine whether an action fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, the Court must engage in a two-step inquiry. First, the Court
must identify the allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption
of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950-51 (2009). These include “legal
conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are]
supported by mere conclusory statements.” Id. at 1949. Second, the Court must
determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 1950-51.
This is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id. at 1950. The plaintiff is required to plead facts
that show more than the “mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. The Court must review
the factual allegations in the complaint “to determine if they plausibly suggest an
entitlement to relief.” Id. at 1951. When faced with alternative explanations for the
alleged misconduct, the Court may exercise its judgment in determining whether
plaintiff’s proffered conclusion is the most plausible or whether it is more likely that
no misconduct occurred. Id. at 1950, 1951-52.

2

Amended Complaint
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Potosi Correctional Center, seeks monetary relief in
this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against defendants Jefferson County Jail, Vernon Martin,
III (Correctional Officer, Jefferson County Jail), Unknown Jordan (Jefferson County
Police Officer), Unknown Williams (Jefferson County Police Officer), Oliver G.
Boyer (Warden/Sheriff, Jefferson County Jail), and Unknown Litton (Correctional
Officer, Jefferson County Jail).
Plaintiff alleges that (1) defendants Williams, Martin, and Jordan physically
assaulted and used excessive force against him in the processing area of the Jefferson
County Jail on June 6, 2011, in violation of plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights;
(2) defendant Boyer failed to provide for "the safety and welfare of [plaintiff]"; and
(3) defendant Litton "refused to allow [plaintiff] to follow through with the grievance
process." Plaintiff is suing defendants in their individual capacities.
I. Defendants Williams, Martin, and Jordan
Having carefully reviewed plaintiff's allegations, the Court finds that plaintiff
has stated Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendants Williams, Martin, and
Jordan, in their individual capacities. Therefore, the Court will order that said
defendants file a responsive pleading to the amended complaint.

3

II. Defendants Jefferson County Jail, Boyer, and Litton
The Court will dismiss this action against Jefferson County Jail, because jails
are not suable entities under § 1983. See Lair v. Norris, 32 Fed. Appx. 175, 2002 WL
496779 (8th Cir. 2002); Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1010 (8th Cir.
1999)(en banc)(§ 1983 suit cannot be brought against state agency), cert. dismissed,
529 U.S. 1001 (2000); Marsden v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 856 F. Supp. 832, 836
(S.D.N.Y. 1994)(jails are not entities amenable to suit).
The amended complaint will be dismissed as legally frivolous as to defendant
Boyer, because plaintiff does not set forth any facts indicating that Boyer was directly
involved in or personally responsible for the violation of his constitutional rights. See
Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990)(liability under § 1983
requires causal link to, and direct responsibility for, alleged deprivation of rights); 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). Plaintiff’s summary claim that
Boyer failed to provide for his safety and welfare is a mere conclusory statement and
will not be given an assumption of truth. See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950-51; 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
4

responsibility for supervising operations of prison is insufficient to establish personal
involvement required to support liability under § 1983).
The Court will also dismiss this action as to defendant Unknown Litton for
allegedly refusing to allow plaintiff to follow through with the grievance process,
because this allegation does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation and fails
to state a claim or cause of action under § 1983. See Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494,
495 (8th Cir. 1993)(prison officials' failure to process grievances, without more, is not
actionable under § 1983; grievance procedure is procedural right only and does not
confer substantive right on inmate).
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall docket this case as
Patrick Rudolph v. Jefferson County Jail, Vernon Martin, III, Unknown Jordan,
Unknown Williams, Oliver G. Boyer, and Unknown Litton.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Vernon Martin III, Unknown
Jordan, and Unknown Williams, in their individual capacities, shall timely file a
responsive pleading directed to plaintiff’s amended complaint [ECF No. 7].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to defendants Jefferson County Jail,
Oliver G. Boyer, and Unknown Litton, the Clerk shall not issue process or cause
process to issue upon the amended complaint, because the allegations are legally
5

frivolous and fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court's differentiated case
management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (standard prisoner actions).
A separate Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and
Order.
Dated this 4th day of March, 2013.

_________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6