Baldwin v. Owens 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 the plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $39.03 within thirty (30) days of the date o f this Order..... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to issue upon plaintiff's claims for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.....IT IS FURTHE R ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint as to plaintiff's claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act because, as to these claims, the complaint i s legally frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both..... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is assigned to Track 5B: Prisoner Standard. An Order of Partial Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Response to Court due by 11/9/2014.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 10/9/14. (JWD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
FREDRICK ALLEN BALDWIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN OWENS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14CV1662 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Fredrick Baldwin
(registration no.1213912), an inmate at Western Missouri Correctional Center (“WMCC”), 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
will assess an initial partial filing fee of $39.03. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Furthermore, after
reviewing the complaint, the Court will partially dismiss the complaint and will order the Clerk
to issue process or cause process to be issued on the non-frivolous portions of the complaint.
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 sixmonth 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 an average monthly deposit of $195.17, and an average monthly
balance of $51.34. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee. Accordingly, the
Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $39.03, which is 20 percent of plaintiff's average
monthly deposit.
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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (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, 32-33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,
236 (1974).
The Complaint
Plaintiff, an inmate at WMCC, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his civil rights which allegedly occurred during his incarceration at Eastern

-2-

Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center (“ERDCC”). Plaintiff also asserts claims under
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Named as defendants are
Correctional Officer Owens and Classification Caseworker Doe.1
Plaintiff claims that he entered ERDCC on May 24, 2012, with medical restrictions as a
result of his diabetes.

He states that he has severe neuropathy in both legs and requires

assignment to a lower bunk. Plaintiff asserts that he told Jane/John Doe, the Classification
Caseworker who assigned him to a bunk about his medical restrictions, but that his request for a
lower bunk was denied. He asserts that he also complained to Correctional Officer Owen about
his inability to get up to the top bunk due to the neuropathy in his legs, but he was told to get up
to the top bunk or else he would be given a conduct violation.
Plaintiff claims that as a result of the awkward way in which he had to pull himself up to
the top bunk due to his medical problems, he got his testicles caught in the bed frame. He asserts
that as a result of the damage done, he had to have emergency surgery to repair his testicles, and
he now has a permanent injury as a result.
Plaintiff names defendants in their individual capacities only.
Discussion
Plaintiff’s allegations against Correctional Officer Owens and Classification Caseworker
Doe, as pleaded, state a claim under the 8th Amendment for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s
serious medical needs against defendant Owens and defendant Doe in their individual capacities.
Unfortunately, plaintiff cannot bring a claim against defendants in their individual
capacities for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act. See,
e.g., Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1005 n. 8 (8th Cir. 1999) (en banc); Johnson v.

1

Although the docket states that there is a defendant John Doe and a defendant Jane Doe, after
reading plaintiff’s allegations, it appears that he is merely attempting to bring his claims against
one particular Classification Caseworker, identified as either John and/or Jane Doe.
-3-

Goord, No. 01CIV9587PKC, F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2199500 (S.D.N.Y. September 29, 2004)
(collecting cases); see also, Hiler v. Brown, 177 F.3d 542, 544 (6th Cir. 1999); Brewer v.
Wisconsin Bd. of Bar Examiners, 270 Fed.Appx. 418 (7th Cir. 2008). Title II of the ADA and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act simply do not impose liability on individual defendants in
their individual capacities, and plaintiff’s claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act will
be dismissed.
In light of the aforementioned, the Court will order the Clerk to issue process on
defendant Owen as to plaintiff’s 8th Amendment claim. Although Classification Caseworker
Doe has not been specifically identified at this time, the Court will allow plaintiff an opportunity
to seek information as to defendant Doe’s identity during the initial phases of discovery in this
matter for the purposes of pursuing his 8th Amendment claim against this defendant.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc.
#2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $39.03
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance
payable to “Clerk, United States District Court,” and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his
prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for an original
proceeding.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to pay the initial partial filing fee
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, then this case will be dismissed without
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to
issue upon plaintiff’s claims for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, brought

-4-

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Owens, a Correctional Officer with the Missouri
Department of Corrections, shall be served according to the waiver agreement the Court
maintains with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office. Plaintiff will be allowed to ascertain
defendant Doe’s specific identifying information during the initial stages of discovery so that
service may be properly effectuated on this defendant.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), defendant
Owens shall reply to plaintiff's claims within the time provided by the applicable provisions of
Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure..
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to
issue upon the complaint as to plaintiff’s claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities
Act or the Rehabilitation Act because, as to these claims, the complaint is legally frivolous or
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is assigned to Track 5B: Prisoner Standard.
An Order of Partial Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 9th day of October, 2014.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-