McCauley v. Gray et al
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve process on defendants Jerome Fields and Scott Weber. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the official-capacity claims are DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Richard Gray, Dale Glass, Richard Carson, Leonard Edwards, Delores Shaw, Michael Opraka, and Terri Coates are DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Partial Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 2/25/16. (KJS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JERRY LAJUAN McCAULEY,
RICHARD GRAY, et al.,
No. 4:15CV1899 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s amended complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e). Upon review, the Court finds that several of plaintiff’s claims should be
Standard of Review
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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
A plaintiff must
demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.”
Id. at 679. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
common sense. Id. at 679.
Plaintiff alleges that the conditions of confinement at the St. Louis City Justice Center
(“SLCJC”) and the St. Louis Medium Security Institution (“MSI”) violated his rights. He brings
this action against several city officials, correctional officers, and Corizon, Inc.
defendants in their individual and official capacities.
Plaintiff’s allegations are mostly conclusory and do not involve any particular defendant.
In general, plaintiff complains that he was placed in overcrowded holding cells; placed in
disciplinary segregation without due process, denied access to social services; denied bedding,
hot meals, or showers on a short-term basis; exposed to an unsanitary environment; denied
hygiene items; subjected to excessive noise and lighting during sleep hours; given a poor diet;
denied access to legal materials; and denied adequate recreation. He does not allege that any of
the defendants were directly responsible for these conditions. He only claims that they did not
respond to his complaints.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants Weber and Fields retaliated against him for filing
complaints by transferring him from MSI to SLCJC. Plaintiff says that when he arrived at
SLCJC he was denied his medication for four days by several nurses, none of whom are named.
The Court finds that plaintiff’s retaliatory transfer claim survives initial review. As a
result, the Court will issue process on defendants Weber and Fields in their individual capacities.
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 Dep’t 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, plaintiff must allege that a policy or custom of the government entity is
responsible for the alleged constitutional violation. Monell v. Dep’t of Social 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, plaintiff’s official-capacity claims must be dismissed.
“Liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the alleged
deprivation of rights.” Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990); see Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and
§ 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the
official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”); Camberos v. Branstad, 73
F.3d 174, 176 (8th Cir. 1995) (“a general responsibility for supervising the operations of a prison
is insufficient to establish the personal involvement required to support liability.”). Additionally,
“[r]uling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the
violation.” George v. Smith, 507 F. 3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff does not allege that any
of the remaining defendants were directly responsible for the alleged violations of his rights. As
a result, the Court will dismiss each of the remaining individual defendants.
Finally, to state a claim against Corizon, plaintiff must allege that there was a policy,
custom or official action that caused an actionable injury. Sanders v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 984
F.2d 972, 95-76 (8th Cir. 1993). He does not allege that a Corizon policy led to any medical
mistreatment. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim against Corizon is frivolous.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve process on defendants
Jerome Fields and Scott Weber.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the official-capacity claims are DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Richard Gray, Dale Glass, Richard
Carson, Leonard Edwards, Delores Shaw, Michael Opraka, and Terri Coates are DISMISSED
An Order of Partial Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 25th day of February, 2016
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
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?