Williams v. City of St. Louis et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall not cause process to issue on the amended complaint, because it is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. # 8 ] is denied as moot. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 6/17/15. (JAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

MAURICE WILLIAMS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:15-CV-14-CEJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on review of plaintiff=s amended complaint
[Doc. #7].

After having carefully reviewed plaintiff’s allegations, and for the

reasons stated below, this action will be dismissed as legally frivolous and for
failure to state a claim or cause of action.

See 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 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.
either law or in fact.@

An action is frivolous if Ait lacks an arguable basis in

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 Aenough

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@

Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). To determine whether an action fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must engage in a two-step
inquiry.

First, the court must identify the allegations in the complaint that are not

entitled to the assumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79 (2009).
These include Alegal conclusions@ and A[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements.@

Id.

Second, the court must determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim
for relief.

Id. at 680-82.

This is a Acontext-specific task that requires the

reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.@

Id. at 681.

The plaintiff is required to plead facts that show more than the Amere possibility of
misconduct.@ Id.

The court must review the factual allegations in the complaint

Ato determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.@ Id. at 681-82.
When faced with alternative explanations for the alleged misconduct, the court
may exercise its judgment in determining whether plaintiff=s proffered conclusion
is the most plausible or whether it is more likely that no misconduct occurred. Id.
In reviewing a pro se complaint under ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must give
the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction.
519, 520 (1972).

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

The court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the

2

plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless.

Denton v. Hernandez, 504

U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
The Amended Complaint
On March 3, 2015, plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint in
accordance with the court’s specific instructions, to wit:
[I]n the "Statement of Claim," plaintiff shall start by typing the
first defendant=s name and state whether he is suing that defendant in
his or her individual and/or official capacity. Next, under the
defendant's name, plaintiff shall set forth in separate numbered
paragraphs the allegations supporting his claim(s) as to that particular
defendant, as well as the right(s) that he claims that particular defendant
violated. When possible, plaintiff should also include relevant dates
or time periods in his allegations. If plaintiff is suing more than one
defendant, he shall proceed in this manner with each of the named
defendants, separately setting forth each individual name and under
that name, in numbered paragraphs, the allegations specific to that
particular defendant and the right(s) that he claims that particular
defendant violated. Plaintiff should not attach any exhibits to his
amended complaint; all his claims should be clearly set forth in the
"Statement of Claim."
[Doc. #5].
Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on or about March 13, 2015 [Doc. #7].
Plaintiff, an inmate at the St. Louis City Justice Center, brings this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. '' 2000cc-1 et seq. Named as defendants are the
City of St. Louis, Burton Barr (chaplain), Richard Gray (director), Melvin Diggs

3

(correctional officer), Sydney Turner (correctional officer), Len Crenshaw (jail
superintendent), Irene Mitchell (jail employee), Dale Glass (commissioner), and
Unknown Irving (correctional officer). Plaintiff generally and very briefly alleges
that he is not being served kosher meals, he is confined 23-24 hours per day in
unsanitary conditions, food is served at unsafe temperatures, and he is subjected to
regular strip searches. Plaintiff sues defendants in both their individual and official
capacities.
Discussion
Naming a government official in his or her official capacity is the equivalent
of naming the government entity that employs the official, in this case the City of
St. Louis. See Will v. Michigan Dep=t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
Official-capacity suits are tantamount to suits brought directly against the public
entity of which the official is an agent.

Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166

(1985). To state a claim against a public entity or a government official in his or
her official capacity, a plaintiff must allege that a policy or custom of the public
entity was responsible for the alleged constitutional violation. Brandon v. Holt,
469 U.S. 464, 473 (1985); Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,
690-91 (1978). Because plaintiff does not make such a claim in the instant case,

4

the complaint fails to state a claim or cause of action against defendants in their
official capacities, as well as the City of St. Louis.
With respect to plaintiff’s individual-capacity claims, he summarily alleges
against each defendant: “Refused to provide kosher meals pursuant to RLUIPA,
allows confinement 23-24 hrs. per day in unsanitary conditions and food served at
unsafe temperatures.”

Regarding defendants Mitchell, Glass, and Irving, plaintiff

further states, “Regular strip searches.”
Plaintiff’s conclusory claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim or
cause of action against the named defendants.

Despite the court’s explicit

instructions, plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face relative to his claims concerning kosher meals, strip
searches, unsanitary prison conditions, and food temperature.

Plaintiff’s

allegations are mere legal conclusions and threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, which are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Because there
are no non-conclusory allegations that would show defendants impinged upon
plaintiff=s rights under § 1983 and/or RLUIPA, the complaint Astops short of the line
between possibility and plausibility of >entitlement to relief.=@ Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 557; see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78 (legal conclusions and threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action that are supported by mere conclusory statements are

5

not entitled to the assumption of truth); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th
Cir. 1985) (claim not cognizable under ' 1983 where plaintiff fails to allege
defendant was personally involved in or directly responsible for incidents that
injured plaintiff); see also Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995) (theory of
supervisory liability is inapplicable in ' 1983 suits); Blake v. Cooper, 2013 WL
523710, *1 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 12, 2013) (RLUIPA does not authorize
individual-capacity claims against prison officials).
For these reasons, the court will dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '
1915(e)(2)(B).
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall not cause process
to issue on the amended complaint, because it is legally frivolous and fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion for appointment of
counsel [Doc. #8] is denied as moot.
Dated this 17th day of June, 2015.

______________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6