Mosley v. Boyer et al

Filing 4

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 plaintiff shall pay an initial partial filing fee of $26.66 within thirty (30) da ys from the date of this order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to "Clerk, United States District Court," and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and ( 4) that the remittance is for an original proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue, 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). A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on October 7, 2015. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHAD MOSLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

GLENN BOYER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15-CV-1525-RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion for leave to commence
this action without payment of the required filing fee [Doc. #2]. After reviewing
plaintiffs financial information, the motion will be granted and plaintiff will be
assessed an initial partial filing fee of $26.66, which is twenty percent of his average
monthly deposit of $133.33 over the past six months. Furthermore, based upon a
review of the complaint [Doc. # 1], the Court finds that this action should be
dismissed 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 ifthe 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 "it 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 "enough
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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950-51 (2009).

These include "legal

conclusions" and "[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.
1950-51.

Id. at

This is a "context-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 "mere possibility of misconduct."

Id.

The Court must review the factual allegations in the complaint "to 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 plaintiffs conclusion is the most plausible or
whether it is more likely that no misconduct occurred.

2

Id. at 1950, 51-52.

Moreover, in reviewing a prose complaint under§ 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court
must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction.
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

Haines v. Kerner,

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, an inmate at the St. Louis City Justice Center, brings this action for
monetary relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Glenn Boyer (Jefferson County
Sheriff) and William McDaniel (Jefferson County Sergeant). Plaintiff summarily
alleges that on October 3, 2014, he was assaulted by "Officer Saq.," while "three
other officers assisted and watch[ ed]." Plaintiff claims he was denied medical
treatment.
Discussion

Plaintiff brings this action against defendants Boyer and McDaniel in their
official capacities. See Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72 F.3d 615, 619
(8th Cir. 1995) (where a complaint is silent about defendant's capacity, Court must
interpret the complaint as including official-capacity claims); Nix v. Norman, 879
F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1989). Naming a government official in his or her official
capacity is the equivalent of naming the government entity that employs the official.
3

Will v. Michigan Dept of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). To state a claim
against a municipality or a government official in his or her official capacity, a
plaintiff must allege that a policy or custom of the government entity is responsible
for the alleged constitutional violation. Monell v. Dept ofSocial Services, 436 U.S.
658, 690-91 (1978). The instant complaint does not contain any allegations that a
policy or custom of a government entity was responsible for the alleged violations of
plaintiff's constitutional rights. As a result, the complaint is legally frivolous and
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
As additional grounds for dismissing this action, the Court notes that 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 that
defendants personally participated in the violation of his constitutional rights. 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
4

to allege defendant was personally involved in or directly responsible for incidents
that injured plaintiff).
For these reasons, this action will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
According! y,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay an initial partial filing
fee of $26.66 within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.

Plaintiff is

instructed to make his remittance payable to "Clerk, United States District Court,"
and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case
number; and (4) that the remittance is for an original proceeding.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or
cause process to issue, 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).

A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.

5

Dated this

;fL

dayo~

'2015.

\;7f~,Lb{b
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6