Phillips v. Blanks et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. [Doc. 2] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to be issued as to defendant Unknow n Blanks in his individual capacity only. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Unknown Blanks, in his individual capacity, shall reply to the complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's official-capacity claims against Unknown Blanks and all claims against the City of St. Louis and Barnes Jewish Hospital are DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to this Court's differentiated case management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B(prisoner actions-standard). A separate Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 5/8/2015. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

CLINT PHILLIPS, III,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN BLANKS, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:15-CV-485 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff=s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.
motion.

Having considered plaintiff’s financial information, the Court will grant the

In addition, the Court will (1) dismiss plaintiff's official-capacity claims against

defendant Unknown Blanks; (2) order the Clerk of Court to issue process on the complaint as to
defendant Blanks in his individual capacity; and (3) dismiss the complaint as to defendants City
of St. Louis and Barnes Jewish Hospital.
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 Ait 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 Aenough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

Bell Atlantic

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 680-81. 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.

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).
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action for monetary relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against
defendants Unknown Blanks (a City of St. Louis police officer), the City of St. Louis, and
Barnes Jewish Hospital. Plaintiff alleges that in June of 2014, defendant Blanks falsely arrested
him without probable cause and in retaliation for plaintiff stating that he would report Blanks to
2

Internal Affairs.
and prosecuted.”

Plaintiff states that he was “assaulted and battered and maliciously arrested
Plaintiff is suing defendant Blanks in both his individual and official

capacities.
Plaintiff further states that he was “thrown in a cell” and, after he began complaining of
neck pain, he was illegally transported to Barnes Jewish Hospital.

Plaintiff alleges that the

hospital “security forces and personnel . . . all contrived [his] false arrest/imprisonment.”
Plaintiff states that he was strip-searched and handcuffed to a hospital bed “while hospital
personnel performed a painful procedure that identified that [his] vocal cords were damaged.”
Plaintiff states that a hospital physician “made a blatant misdiagnosis and called [him] delusional
to substantiate their malicious claims.”

In addition, plaintiff alleges that the hospital “showed a

deliberate indifference to [his] medical needs and had [him] civilly committed after [he] was
attacked by police and security personnel.” Plaintiff also claims that “the security forces” lied
to his lawyer in stating that plaintiff did not wish to talk to him.
Last, plaintiff summarily claims that the City of St. Louis Police Department “has a
pattern of unlawful and improper misdemeanor arrest[s] and should be liable for negligent
supervision, and failure to train.” Plaintiff states that all charges against him were ultimately
dismissed.
Discussion
I. Claims against the City of St. Louis and Barnes Jewish Hospital
With regard to the City of St. Louis, the Court notes that although a municipality is not
entitled to absolute immunity in a § 1983 action, it cannot be held liable under a respondeat
superior theory. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Municipal
3

liability cannot be imposed absent factual, non-conclusory allegations that unlawful actions were
taken pursuant to a municipality's unconstitutional policy or custom. Id. at 694; see also Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 677-79 (legal conclusions and threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action
that are supported by mere conclusory statements are not entitled to the assumption of truth).
There are no non-conclusory allegations in the instant complaint relative to the City of St. Louis,
and therefore, this action will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to ' 1915(e)(2)(B) as to this
defendant.1
Similarly, the Court will dismiss this action as to defendant Barnes Jewish Hospital. AA
corporation acting under color of state law will be held liable only for its own unconstitutional
policies." Sanders v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972, 975-76 (8th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff does
not claim that his constitutional rights were violated as the result of an official hospital policy or
custom. Moreover, the respondeat superior theory of liability is inapplicable in ' 1983 actions,
see Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995), and mere negligence does not rise to the level
of a constitutional violation. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (mere negligence is not cognizable as Eighth Amendment
violation); Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 188 n.3 (8th Cir. 1986) (Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process Clause is not implicated by state official=s negligent act causing unintended loss of or
injury to life, liberty, or property).

1

The Court will not liberally construe the complaint as asserting claims against the City of
St. Louis Police Department, because police departments are not suable entities under 42 U.S.C.
' 1983. See Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992); see also De
La Garza v. Kandiyohi County Jail, 2001 WL 987542, at *1 (8th Cir. 2001) (sheriff's departments
and police departments are not usually considered legal entities subject to suit under ' 1983).
4

II. Official Capacity Claims
Official-capacity suits are tantamount to actions 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 allege any facts to

support a claim that a public entity=s policy or custom was responsible for the violation of his
constitutional rights, the complaint fails to state a claim or cause of action under ' 1983 against
defendant Unknown Blanks in his official capacity.
III. Individual Capacity Claims
Plaintiff's claims against defendant Unknown Blanks in his individual capacity, arising
out of the alleged false arrest, state a claim for the violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights
and, therefore, the Court will order process to issue against this defendant.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED.

[Doc. 2]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to be
issued as to defendant Unknown Blanks in his individual capacity only.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Unknown Blanks, in his individual
capacity, shall reply to the complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of
Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5

See 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(g)(2).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's official-capacity claims against defendant
Unknown Blanks and all claims against the City of St. Louis and Barnes Jewish Hospital are
DISMISSED without prejudice.

See 42 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to this Court=s differentiated case
management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (prisoner actions-standard).
A separate Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.

____________________________________
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 8th day of May, 2015.

6