Lander v. Slay et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis Doc. # 2 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because the complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for service of process Doc. # 3 is DENIED as moot. A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 7/20/15. (ARL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EDWARD W. LANDER,
FRANCES SLAY, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on transfer from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois [Doc. #5]. Plaintiff has filed a motion
requesting in forma pauperis status [Doc. #2], which will be granted. In addition,
and for the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss this action pursuant to 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. 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.@ 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.
Moreover, 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 (1992).
Plaintiff seeks relief in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 for
the violation of his Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The named
defendants are Mayor Frances Slay, St. Louis Police Department, St. Louis City
Court, and American Traffic Solutions, Inc. Plaintiff alleges that he was issued a
red light camera citation on August 18, 2013, but claims that “[t]he close-up photo
could have not been taken by a red light camera . . . [and] could only have been taken
from the dash of a police car illegally spying on innocence [sic] citizens. The rest
of the so called evidence was manufactured on a computer.” Plaintiff further
alleges that he pleaded not guilty to the misdemeanor and demanded a jury trial, but
“[t]he judge of the St. Louis City Court denied [him] the right to a trial and
demanded $100.” Plaintiff summarily claims that “[t]he way the red light cameras
are used is a violation of the 6th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution by
concealing evidence as to who committed the offense.” Plaintiff states that “this
[is] an extortion racket to raise money,” and he asks for an Order “ruling that such
cameras be ruled unconstitutional.” He also asks that the St. Louis City Court “be
declared unlawful and disband[ed] . . . and the judges be disbarred.” He is
demanding $7 million in damages.
To state a claim under ' 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant
acted under color of state law, and (2) defendant's alleged conduct deprived the
plaintiff of a constitutionally-protected federal right. Schmidt v. City of Bella Villa,
557 F.3d 564, 571 (8th Cir. 2009). In the instant case, plaintiff has failed to allege
any allegations against Mayor Francis Slay. See Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895,
915 (9th Cir. 2001) (§ 1983 liability arises only upon a showing of personal
participation by defendant); Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir.
1990) (liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for,
the alleged deprivation of rights); 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). Because plaintiff has not set forth any facts indicating that the defendant
Slay was directly involved in or personally responsible for the violation of his
constitutional rights, the Court will dismiss this action as legally frivolous as to
defendant Francis Slay.
This action will also be dismissed as to the St. Louis City Police Department
and the St. Louis City Court, because these defendants are not suable entities under §
1983. See Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992)
(police departments are not suable entities under ' 1983); 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); Harris v. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western Dist., 787 F.2d 427 (8th Cir.
1986) (courts are not "persons" for ' 1983 purposes); Ketchum v. City of West
Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992) (departments or subdivisions of
local government are Anot juridical entities suable as such.@).
In addition, plaintiff=s vague and conclusory allegations against American
Traffic Solutions, Inc., simply do not rise to the level of constitutional violations and
fail to state a claim or cause of action under ' 1983. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 677-78 (2009) (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). And, to the extent that plaintiff is now seeking
enforcement of or compliance with a Missouri state-court judgment, his remedies lie
not in federal district court, but rather, with the Missouri state courts or the United
States Supreme Court. Federal district courts are courts of original jurisdiction;
they lack subject matter jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of state court
decisions. Postma v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan, 74 F.3d 160, 162 (8th Cir. 1996).
"Review of state court decisions may be had only in the Supreme Court." Id. For
these reasons, the Court will dismiss this action pursuant to ' 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause
process to issue upon the complaint, because the complaint is legally frivolous and
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for service of process
[Doc. #3] is DENIED as moot.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 20th day of July, 2015.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?