Hightower v. Medical Staff/St. Louis Justice Center
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint as to defendants Richard Edwards and Anthony Davis. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), def endants Richard Edwards and Anthony Davis 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 proce ss or cause process to issue upon the complaint as to defendants City of St. Louis, Jeffrey Carson, or Dorothy Stewart because, as to these defendants, the complaint fails to state a claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the partial initial filing fee requirement is waived until such time as plaintiff can afford to pay it. An order of partial dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 1/6/2015. (KMS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DAVID HIGHTOWER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:14CV1959 CEJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for review of plaintiff’s amended complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff’s allegations, liberally construed, state a plausible claim for relief
against defendants Richard Edwards and Anthony Davis.
However, plaintiff’s allegations
against the remaining defendants fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Amended Complaint
Plaintiff sues defendants in both their individual and official capacities under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Defendants are the City of St. Louis, Jeffrey Carson (Superintendent of the St. Louis
City Justice Center), Richard Edwards (St. Louis City Police Officer), Dorothy Stewart (Director
of Nursing, Justice Center), and Anthony Davis (Licensed Practical Nurse, Justice Center). The
Court accepts the allegations in the amended complaint as true and gives them a liberal
construction.
Plaintiff was arrested for and charged with domestic assault, endangering the welfare of a
child, and resisting arrest.
Plaintiff asserts that the officers who arrested him, including
defendant Edwards, used excessive force, injuring his left shoulder.
When the transporting officers arrived at the Justice Center, the admitting nurse told them
that plaintiff needed to be seen at the hospital for his left shoulder injury before he could be
admitted to the Justice Center. Plaintiff says that the officers did not comply with the nurse’s
instructions. He claims they waited for a shift change and then presented plaintiff to defendant
Davis. Plaintiff told Davis about his inability to move his arm. Davis admitted him to the
Justice Center and told him he would be seen by medical personnel “upstairs.” Plaintiff states
that he was not seen by medical personnel “for weeks.” Plaintiff further states that he was
victimized by other inmates during that time because he could not move his arm.
Plaintiff alleges that an x-ray exam showed that his left shoulder was fractured in two
places. Plaintiff claims he was treated with a sling and “real painkillers.”
Plaintiff states that he is suing defendants Carson and Stewart because they are
supervisors and should have made sure their employees did their jobs correctly.
Discussion
The factual allegations made against defendants Edwards and Davis in their individual
capacities, while not precise, can be read to state a sufficiently plausible claim for relief under
§ 1983. As a result, the Court will direct the Clerk to serve these defendants with process.
The amended complaint does not state a claim against the City of St. Louis or against the
defendants in their official capacities. 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
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 Court will dismiss plaintiff’s claims
against the City as well as plaintiff’s official capacity claims.
Plaintiff’s supervisory liability claims against Carson and Stewart also fail to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. See Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174, 176 (8th Cir.
-2-
1995) (“a general responsibility for supervising the operations of a prison is insufficient to
establish the personal involvement required to support liability.”).
Finally, the Court notes that plaintiff is unable to pay the partial initial filing fee of $1.80
at this time. Therefore, the Court will waive the fee until such time as plaintiff can afford to pay
it.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to issue
upon the complaint as to defendants Richard Edwards and Anthony Davis.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), defendants
Richard Edwards and Anthony Davis 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 defendants City of St. Louis, Jeffrey Carson, or Dorothy Stewart
because, as to these defendants, the complaint fails to state a claim.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the partial initial filing fee requirement is waived
until such time as plaintiff can afford to pay it.
An order of partial dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 6th day of January, 2015.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?