Burke v. St. Louis City Jails et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER:IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs official-capacity claims are DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED.that defendant St. Louis City Jails is DISMISSED. IT IS. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to docket Tom Raye as a defendant in this action rather than as a plaintiff. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve process on defendants in their individual capacities. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 09/25/2015. (KCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

CALVIN BURKE, 1
Plaintiff,
v.

ST. LOUIS CITY JAILS, et al.,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14CV2107 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court for review of plaintiffs complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e). Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Eastern Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center,

sues defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
Standard of :Q.eview
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Cotµi is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a complaint must plead more than "legal concfosions"
and "[t]hreadbare recitals _of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere
conclusory statements." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 55(j U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

A plaintiff must

demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a "mere possibility of misconduct."

Id at 679. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Id at 678.

I

The Clerk has mistakenly docketed defendant Tom Raye as aplaintiff.

The Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that defendants retaliated against him for· filing grievances, exposed him
to unconstitutional strip searches, and punished him in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
Plaintiff sues defendants in their official and individual capacities.
Discussion

Naming a government official in his or her official capacity is the equivalent of naming
the government entity that employs the offi,cial, in this case -the State of Missouri.

Will v.

Michigan Dept ofState Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). "[N]either a State nor its officials acting
in their official capacity are 'persons' under § 1983." Id. As a result, the Court will dismiss
plaintiffs official-capacity claiins.
Plaintiffs claim against the St. Louis City Jails is legally frivolous because the Jails are
. not suable entities. 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.").
So, the Jails are dismissed as well.
The Court will direct the Clerk to serve process on defendants in their individual
capacities.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs official-capacity claims are DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED .that defendant St. Louis City Jails is DISMISSED.
IT IS. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to docket Tom Raye as a

defendant in this action rather than as a plaintiff.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve process on defendants
in their individual capacities.
Dated

·

this~ay of September, 2015.

YI~~~

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ·

3