Little v. Cape Girardeau Police Department et al
Filing
4
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 08/14/2015. (CLK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LEATRICE L. LITTLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPE GIRARDEAU POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:15CV1237 DDN
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The motion is granted. Additionally, the Court finds that the complaint is legally
frivolous.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court 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 conclusions”
and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere
conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A plaintiff must
demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.”
Plaintiff sues the Cape Girardeau Police Department, the Brentwood Police Department,
and the State of Missouri for harassment from police officers. Plaintiff was convicted of firstdegree burglary and forcible rape in 1981. Missouri v. Little, 674 S.W.2d 541 (Mo. banc 1984).
He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which was granted by the
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 1987. Little v. Armontrout, 835 F.2d 1240 (8th Cir.
1987). The Court of Appeals found that the victim’s identification of Little as her attacker was
improperly suggested by a police hypnotist. Id. at 1245.
Plaintiff claims that on December 11, 2001, officers with the Cape Girardeau Police
Department raided his place of employment and “yell[ed] that [he] had gotten off on a
technicality.” He asserts that he volunteered a sample of his DNA and “waited for the police to
arrest [him].” He says he has suffered mental and emotional pain, and he says his reputation has
suffered. He does not allege that he was searched or detained unlawfully.
The complaint is frivolous as to the Cape Girardeau and Brentwood police departments
because they are not subject to suit under § 1983. Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974
F.2d 81, 82 (1992) (police departments are not suable entities because they are subdivision of
city government). And plaintiff cannot sue the State of Missouri because it enjoys sovereign
immunity. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985); Murphy v. Arkansas, 127
F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1997). As a result, the complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 14th day of August, 2015
___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?