Thedford v. Dent County et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff will not be assessed a filing fee at this time. 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 or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 1/22/13. (LAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL THEDFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
DENT COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV1842 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff (registration no.
S10649), an inmate at Menard Correctional Center, for leave to commence this action
without payment of the required filing fee. For the reasons stated below, the Court
finds that plaintiff does not have sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee and
because his account statement shows that he lacks any funds, he will not be assesed
an initial partial filing fee at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Furthermore,
based upon a review of the complaint, the Court finds that the complaint should be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), a prisoner bringing a civil action in forma
pauperis is required to pay the full amount of the filing fee. If the prisoner has
insufficient funds in his or her prison account to pay the entire fee, the Court must

assess and, when funds exist, collect an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the
greater of (1) the average monthly deposits in the prisoner’s account, or (2) the
average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the prior six-month period.
After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner is required to make monthly
payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s
account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of the prisoner will
forward these monthly payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the
prisoner’s account exceeds $10, until the filing fee is fully paid. Id.
Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit and a certified copy of his prison account
statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the submission of his
complaint. A review of plaintiff’s account indicates that he lacks any significant
funds in his account. Accordingly, plaintiff will not be assessed a filing fee at this
time.
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 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). An action is malicious if it is
-2-

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).
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 conclusion is the most plausible or whether it is more
likely that no misconduct occurred. Id. at 1950, 51-52.
The Complaint
-3-

Plaintiff, an inmate at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights. Named as defendants are
Dent County, Missouri and Michael Letchworth, a Detective in Salem, Missouri.
The totality of plaintiff’s “Statement of Claim,” is as follows:
“On Aug. 29th at 4 pm the Dent County Sheriff’s Dept. Came out of
Dent County into Texas County to my mother’s home and entered
without permission with guns drawn they also sprayed my dog then
arrested me, my girlfriend and grandfather and took us to the Dent
County Jail. No warrant was issued til Aug. 30th.
In his request for relief, plaintiff asks to have his “case dismissed with prejudice for
case # 12DE-CR00474.”1 Plaintiff additionally seeks monetary damages in an
amount of $50,000 “for unlawful entry, macing my dog, unlawful arrest, crossing
jurisdiction.”
Discussion
“Liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility
for, the alleged deprivation of rights.” Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208
(8th Cir. 1990); 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

1

The Court has reviewed the docket sheet for this state court action on
http://www/courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/ and found that plaintiff’s criminal action
is still pending against him. The case is currently set for preliminary hearing on
February 7, 2013.
-4-

personally involved in or directly responsible for incidents that injured plaintiff);
Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995)(respondeat superior theory
inapplicable in § 1983 suits). In the instant action, plaintiff has not set forth any
facts indicating that any of the named defendants were directly involved in or
personally responsible for the alleged violations of his constitutional rights. In
other words, plaintiff’s “Statement of Claim” fails to link the alleged bad acts to
either named defendant. As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
Additionally, the complaint is silent as to whether defendants are being sued
in their official or 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. To state a
claim against a municipality or a government official in his or her official capacity,
plaintiff must allege that a policy or custom of the municipality is responsible for the
alleged constitutional violation. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S.
658, 690-91 (1978). The instant complaint does not contain any allegations that a
-5-

policy or custom of Dent County or the Dent County Sheriff’s Department was
responsible for the alleged violations of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. As a result,
the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff will not be assessed a filing fee
at this time.
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 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 22nd day of January, 2013.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-6-