Robinson v. State of Missouri
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. # 3 ] 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). A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 11/18/2015. (NEB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
STATE OF MISSOURI,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of J erMarsh Robinson for
leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee.
reviewing plaintiffs financial information, the Court will grant the motion.
addition, the Court will dismiss this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
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.
either law or in fact."
An action is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis in
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S . 319, 328 (1989).
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
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
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.
Id. at 1950-51.
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."
The Court must review the factual allegations in
the complaint "to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief."
When faced with alternative explanations for the alleged misconduct,
the Court may exercise its judgment in determining whether plaintiffs proffered
conclusion is the most plausible or whether it is more likely that no misconduct
Id. at 1950-52.
In reviewing a prose complaint under§ 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give
the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction.
519, 520 (1972).
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
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).
Plaintiff, formerly an inmate at the St. Louis County Justice Center, brings
this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the State of Missouri.
Plaintiff alleges that
on July 15, 2014, Lieutenant Bradford "and his supervisors" used excessive force
when "he was being transferred."
Missouri has liability."
Plaintiff summarily claims that "the State of
In addition, he asserts pendent state claims for negligence
Plaintiff seeks $500 trillion in damages.
Having carefully reviewed the complaint, the Court concludes that this
action is legally frivolous.
The State of Missouri is not a "person" for purposes of
a § 1983 action and is absolutely immune from liability under § 1983.
See Will v.
Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63 (1989).
Moreover, even liberally construing this action as having been brought
against the various correctional officers in their official capacities, this case must
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
Will v. Michigan Dept of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
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.
Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978).
Monell v. Dep 't of Social
The instant complaint does not contain
any allegations that a policy or custom of a government entity was responsible for
the alleged violations of plaintiffs constitutional rights.
As a result, the
complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
Because plaintiffs federal' claims will be dismissed, all remaining pendent
state claims will be dismissed, as well.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine
Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 , 726 (1966) (if federal claims are dismissed before
trial, remaining state claims should also be dismissed); Hassett v. Lemay Bank &
Trust Co.,851 F.2d 1127, 1130 (8th Cir. 1988) (where federal claims have been
dismissed, district courts may decline jurisdiction over pendent state claims as a
"matter of discretion").
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. #3] 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.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and
Dated this 18th day of November, 2015.
RONNIE L. WHITE
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?