Roland v. The County of St. Charles, Missouri et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall docket this action as Leo Sheron Roland v. County of St. Charles, Missouri. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the second of the two amended complaints [Doc. # 5 , pages 10-15] is STRI CKEN from the record. If plaintiff wishes to pursue the claims set forth therein, he must resubmit the pleading to the Court along with the requisite documents necessary for filing a new and separate civil action, including the filing fee or a mot ion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certified inmate account statement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue, because the amended complaint [Doc. # 5 , pages 1-9] is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on September 21, 2015. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LEO S. ROLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE COUNTY OF ST. CHARLES,
MISSOURI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15-CV-966-RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s amended complaint
[Doc. #5], filed in response to the August 4, 2015 Memorandum and Order [Doc.
#4], which is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. '
1915. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss this action as legally
frivolous. 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 must 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. 555, 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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950-51
(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. at 1949. Second, the Court must determine whether the complaint states a
plausible claim for relief. Id. at 1950-51. This is a Acontext-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.@
Id. at 1950. 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 1951. 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. at 1950-52. Moreover, the Court must give the complaint the
benefit of a liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and
2

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 Amended Complaint

Plaintiff, an inmate at the St. Charles County Department of Corrections,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.

The Court notes that,

inexplicably, plaintiff’s amended complaint consists of two separate complaints,
each prepared on a court-provided form.

The first of said pleadings is docketed

as Document #5, pages 1-9, bears cause number 4:15-CV-966-RLW, and names
the County of St. Charles, Missouri as the sole defendant; the second is docketed
as Document #5, pages 10-15, bears no cause number in the caption, and names
Nathan Bathke as the defendant. This is not what the Court ordered plaintiff to
do.
Rather than dismiss this action for failure to comply with the Court’s August
4 Order, the Court will liberally construe the first of the two amended complaints
(i.e., Doc. #5, pages 1-9) as plaintiff’s responsive pleading. The second of the
two amended complaints will be stricken from the record (i.e., Doc. #5, pages
10-15), and if plaintiff wishes to pursue the claims set forth therein, he must submit
the pleading to the Court along with the documents necessary for filing a new civil

3

action, including the filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and certified inmate account statement.
In the amended complaint now before the Court [Doc. #5, pages 1-9],
plaintiff sues the County of St. Charles, Missouri, for the violation of his
constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested on May 22, 2013, and
was detained in the St. Charles County Department of Corrections until the charges
were dismissed on July 1, 2014, for a failure to prosecute.

Plaintiff claims that

defendant violated his due process and speedy trial rights.
Discussion
Although a municipality, such as the County of St. Charles, Missouri, is not
entitled to absolute immunity in ' 1983 actions, it cannot be held liable under a
respondeat superior theory. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691
(1978). Municipal liability cannot be imposed absent an allegation that unlawful
actions were taken pursuant to a municipality's policy or custom. Id. at 694. There
being no such allegation in the present action, the amended complaint is legally
frivolous, and this action will be dismissed without prejudice. 1

1

Furthermore, the Court notes that a prosecutor is absolutely immune from suit for
damages under ' 1983 for alleged violations committed in "initiating a prosecution and in
presenting the state's case." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976); Myers v.
Morris, 810 F.2d 1437, 1448 (8th Cir. 1987). This immunity extends to allegations of
vindictive prosecution. Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d at 1446.
4

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall docket this action
as Leo Sheron Roland v. County of St. Charles, Missouri.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the second of the two amended
complaints [Doc. #5, pages 10-15] is STRICKEN from the record. If plaintiff
wishes to pursue the claims set forth therein, he must resubmit the pleading to the
Court along with the requisite documents necessary for filing a new and separate
civil action, including the filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and certified inmate account statement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or
cause process to issue, because the amended complaint [Doc. #5, pages 1-9] is
legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See
28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B).
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and
Order.
Dated this 21st day of September, 2015.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5