Phillips v. Buzz Westfall Justice Center

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because th e 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). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #4] is DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 5/7/13. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

CLINT PHILLIPS, III,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BUZZ WESTFALL JUSTICE CENTER,)
)
Defendant.
)

No. 4:13-CV-734-TIA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the application of Clint Phillips, III, 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). Furthermore, based upon a
review of the complaint, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
The Complaint
Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the
Buzz Westfall Justice Center (“Justice Center”). Plaintiff alleges that, when he
was released from the Justice Center on January 28, 2012, defendant failed to give
him a month’s supply of medicine he claims he needed for certain medical and
mental health conditions. Plaintiff claims that this failure amounts to deliberate
indifference.

2

Discussion
The complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim against the
Justice Center, because jails and local government detention centers are not suable
entities. See Marsden v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 856 F. Supp. 832, 836 (S.D.N.Y.
1994)(jails are not entities amenable to suit); 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”); McCoy v. Chesapeake
Correctional Center, 788 F.Supp. 890 (E.D.Va. 1992)(local jails are not "persons"
under § 1983). As such, this action will be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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 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).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel [Doc. #4] is DENIED as moot.

3

A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and
Order.
Dated this 7th day of May, 2013.

_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4