Lebon v. St. Louis Metro Police Department et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to be issued upon the amended complaint as to defendant Thomas Scanlon in his individual capacity. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Scanlon, in his indi vidual capacity, shall reply to the amended complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 42U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2).IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's official-ca pacity claims againstdefendant Thomas Scanlon are DISMISSED without prejudice. See 42 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall docket this case as Thomas Paul Lebon v. Thomas Scanlon. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to this Courts differentiated case management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (prisoner actions-standard). A separate Order of Partial Dismissal of Claims shall accompany thisMemorandum and Order. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

THOMAS PAUL LEBON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ST. LOUIS METRO POLICE DEPT., et )
al.,
)
Defendants.
)

No. 4:13-CV-256-TIA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of plaintiff’s amended complaint
[Doc. #6] and supplement [Doc. #12]. For the reasons stated below, the Court will
order the Clerk of Court to issue process as to defendant Thomas Scanlon in his
individual capacity and will dismiss plaintiff's official-capacity claims against this
defendant.
28 U.S.C. § 1915
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the "court shall review before docketing if
feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity." The Court is to dismiss the complaint, or any

portion, if it 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.
In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915A, 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
(1992).
The Pleadings
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Missouri Eastern Correctional Center, brings this
action for monetary relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Thomas
Scanlon (police officer) in his individual and official capacities.1 Plaintiff alleges
constitutional violations arising out of an incident on or about April 25, 2012, when
Scanlon physically assaulted plaintiff for no justifiable reason, thereby resulting in
serious physical injuries to plaintiff. Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against
Thomas Scanlon in his individual capacity state a claim for Fourteenth Amendment

1

Plaintiff names police officer Thomas Scanlon as the sole defendant in this
case. As such this case shall be terminated at to St. Louis Metro Police
Department and Daniel Isom, who were previously named as defendants in the
original complaint.
2

violations, and therefore, the Court will order process to issue against defendant
Thomas Scanlon in his individual capacity.
Naming a government official in his official capacity is the equivalent of
naming the government entity that employs the official. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). To state a claim against a municipality or a
government official in his or her official capacity, a plaintiff must allege that a policy
or custom of the government entity is responsible for the alleged constitutional
violation. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). The
instant complaint does not contain any allegations that a policy or custom of a
government entity was responsible for the alleged violations of plaintiff’s
constitutional rights. As a result, the complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted as to defendant Thomas Scanlon in his
official capacity.
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause
process to be issued upon the amended complaint as to defendant Thomas Scanlon
in his individual capacity.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Scanlon, in his individual
capacity, shall reply to the amended complaint within the time provided by the
3

applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's official-capacity claims against
defendant Thomas Scanlon are DISMISSED without prejudice. See 42 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall docket this case
as Thomas Paul Lebon v. Thomas Scanlon.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to this Court’s differentiated case
management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (prisoner actions-standard).
A separate Order of Partial Dismissal of Claims shall accompany this
Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 3rd day of July, 2013.

/s/Jean C. Hamilton
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4