Morgan v. Duke
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. [Doc. 2] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 3/17/2016. (MRC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
REGINALD A. MORGAN,
DAVID DUKE HEADLESS
CONFEDERATES A.K.A. KKK,
No. 4:16-CV-337 CAS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The motion is granted. Additionally, this action will be dismissed.
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
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 is a civil detainee at the St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center. He alleges
that David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, has tried to murder him with
poison for more than twenty years. Plaintiff says he has been placed in the Federal Witness
Protection Program, and he seeks to be released from civil confinement.
Section 1983 imposes liability on government actors acting under color of state law. 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
“Private actors may incur section 1983 liability only if they are willing
participants in a joint action with public servants acting under color of state law.” Johnson v.
Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 536 (8th Cir.1999). To state a claim against a private
actor under § 1983, a plaintiff “must establish, at the very least, an agreement or meeting of the
minds between the private and state actors, and a corresponding violation of the plaintiffs’ rights
under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Id. Plaintiff has not alleged that Duke
acted in coordination with any state actors to deprive him of his constitutional rights. Therefore,
the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Additionally, an action is factually frivolous if the facts alleged are “fanciful,”
“delusional,” or “fantastic.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). Plaintiff’s
allegations are clearly delusional, so the complaint is also subject to dismissal as frivolous.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. [Doc. 2]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 17th day of March, 2016.
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?