Robinson v. State of Missouri

Filing 5

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
EASTERN DIVISION
JERMARSH ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15-CV-1715-RLW

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.

After

reviewing plaintiffs financial information, the Court will grant the motion.

In

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).

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.
(2009).

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."

Id.

The Court must review the factual allegations in

the complaint "to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief."
at 1951.

Id.

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
occurred.

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
2

plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless.

Denton v. Hernandez, 504

U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
The Complaint

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."
and assault.

Plaintiff summarily claims that "the State of

In addition, he asserts pendent state claims for negligence

Plaintiff seeks $500 trillion in damages.
Discussion

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
be dismissed.

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
3

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.

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.
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
granted.
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,
4

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.
Dated this 18th day of November, 2015.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5