Rogers v. Jenkins et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2 ] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1.50 within thirty (30) days of the date of th is 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 is directed to serve defendant Shawn Jenkins with process. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 7 ] and motion for summons [ECF No. 8 are denied as moot. An order of partial dismissal will be filed separately.. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 10/21/2016. (CLO)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
COREY JEMELL ROGERS,
SHAWN JENKINS, et al.,
No. 4:16-CV-1144 CEJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed plaintiff’s financial information, the Court assesses a partial
initial filing fee of $1.50, which is twenty percent of his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b). Additionally, the Court will direct the Clerk to serve process on defendant Shawn
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, 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.
When reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court accepts the well-pled
facts as true. Furthermore, the Court liberally construes the allegations.
Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Potosi Correctional Center. Defendants are correctional
officers and classification officers. He sues them in their individual capacities.
On November 5, 2015, defendant Rachel Burns told plaintiff he was being transferred to
another cell. When they arrived there, plaintiff saw that the cell was occupied by an offender
who is his enemy. Both plaintiff and the other inmate informed Burns of their enemy status.
Burns removed the other offender from the cell and put plaintiff in it. Plaintiff says Burns did
not properly document their enemy status.
On November 12, 2015, defendants Shawn Jenkins and John Doe came to plaintiff’s cell
with the same inmate and told plaintiff to submit to handcuffs so that the inmate could be placed
in the cell. Plaintiff and the other inmate both informed Jenkins and Doe of their enemy status.
Jenkins “just laughed and stated to [plaintiff] to cuff up or he would mace [him].” Plaintiff
reluctantly complied. After Jenkins and Doe left the area, plaintiff and the other inmate began to
fight. Plaintiff says he suffered several injuries as a result.
Plaintiff states that defendants Gale Bollinger and Bruce Dunn “fail[ed] to take action to
curb the known pattern of abuse of offenders by staff and also not doing their job making sure
that the plaintiff and [his enemy] was documented enemies . . .”
The Court finds that the complaint states a plausible claim for relief against defendants
Jenkins and Doe. Therefore, the Court will direct the Clerk to serve Jenkins with process. The
Court will not dismiss Doe at this time because his identity should be ascertainable during
“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.”). Plaintiff has
not alleged any facts showing that defendants Burns, Bollinger, or Dunn were directly
responsible for his placement in a cell with his enemy. As a result, the claims against these
defendants will be dismissed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1.50
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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve defendant Shawn
Jenkins with process.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s second motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [ECF No. 7] and motion for summons [ECF No. 8] are denied as moot.
An order of partial dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 21st day of October, 2016.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Prisoners must pay the full amount of the $350 filing fee. After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the
prisoner is required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the
prisoner’s account. The agency having custody of the prisoner will deduct the payments and forward them to the
Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
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?