Smith v. City of St. Louis et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. # 3 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $7.53 within thirty (30) days of the date of this O rder. 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 or iginal proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue in this case, because the complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all remaining pending motions are DENIED as moot. A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 12/3/2015. (NEB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL SMITH,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 4:15-CV-1765-RLW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Michael Smith (registration
no. 111372) for leave to commence this action without payment of the required
filing fee.
After reviewing plaintiffs financial information, the Court will grant
the motion and assess an initial partial filing fee of $7.53, which is twenty percent
of plaintiffs six-month average deposit.
In addition, and for the reasons set forth
below, 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).
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).
The Complaint
Plaintiff, an inmate at the St. Louis City Justice Center, seeks monetary
relief in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of St. Louis, the City of St.
Louis Police Department, and St. Louis City police officers Stephen Slama, Joseph
Hecht, Daniel J. Weber, Lindsey M. Wethington, and Mickey Christ.
Plaintiff
alleges that, after being arrested and handcuffed, defendant Christ tasered him, and
"the arresting officers" used excessive force, resulting in "grave physical injuries."
In addition, plaintiff states that he was denied "recommended medical care that
was ordered by the medical professionals at the hospital."
2
Discussion
Plaintiff brings this action against the defendant St. Louis City police
officers in their official capacities.
See Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College,
72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995) (where a complaint is silent with respect to
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.
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
Will v. Michigan Dept of
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.
( 1978).
Monell v. Dept of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91
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 as to the defendant police
officers, as well as the City of St. Louis.
As additional grounds for dismissing this case, the Court notes that the City
of St. Louis Police Department is not a suable entity under § 1983. See Ketchum v.
3
City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992); see also De La Garza v.
Kandiyohi County Jail, 2001 WL 987542, at *1 (8th Cir. 2001) (sheriffs
departments and police departments are not usually considered legal entities subject
to suit under§ 1983). Moreover, a supervisor cannot be held liable on a theory of
respondeat superior for an employee's actions. Boydv. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th
Cir. 1995).
For these reasons, the Court will dismiss this action as legally frivolous
pursuant to§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. #3] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of
$7.53 within thirty (30) days of 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 in this case, because the complaint is legally frivolous and
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all remaining pending motions are
DENIED as moot.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and
Order.
Dated this
_3 tiJ
_____ day of
December, 2015.
5
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?