Morgan v. Duke

Filing 3

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)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION REGINALD A. MORGAN, Plaintiff, v. DAVID DUKE HEADLESS CONFEDERATES A.K.A. KKK, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 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 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. The Complaint 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. Discussion 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. Accordingly, 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. 2 An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. CHARLES A. SHAW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 17th day of March, 2016. 3

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?