Mullins v. Phelps County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 8/29/2016. (CLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

STEVEN RAY MULLINS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
PHELPS COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:16-CV-1188 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs amended complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e). After review, the Court finds that this action must be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
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 brings this action against the Phelps County Sheriffs Department, Phelps
County Sheriff Richard Lisenbee, Corporal John Scott, Nurse Deon Kelly, and Lieutenant Matt
Shults. He alleges that on June 26, 2016, he "got into an altercation" with a female. He says he
opened the back door of her car while the engine was running, and he claims she put the car in
reverse and he was struck by the car door. He fell down and sustained an injury to his right hip
and leg.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Scott arrived at the scene and took him into custody. He
asked Scott for medical treatment, but he claims that Scott denied the request. He asserts that
Scott "grabbed" his injured leg and pushed it into the car.
When he arrived at the Phelps County Jail, he exhibited "discomfort." He had trouble
sitting down or lying on his stomach. Defendant Kelly assessed him and did not provide him
with any treatment. On July 8, 2016 Kelly assessed him again and determined that he had
bruising and strained muscles. She gave him Tylenol, but she did not take an X-ray of his leg.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Shults is knowledgeable of the Jail's policies and
procedures. And he claims that defendant Lisenbee is responsible for training his deputies.

Discussion
The Court reviewed plaintiffs original complaint on August 3, 2016, and found that it
failed to state a claim because, among other things, plaintiff sued defendants in their official
capacities only. In ordering plaintiff to consider amending, the Court instructed, "In order to

sue defendants in their individual capacities, plaintiff must specifically say so in the
complaint. If plaintiff fails to sue defendants in their individual capacities, this action may
be subject to dismissal." (Emphasis in original). Upon review of the amended complaint the

2

Court finds that Plaintiff has not sued the individual defendants in their individual capacities, and
he has not alleged that a policy or custom of a municipal entity is responsible for any alleged
constitutional violation. As a result, plaintiffs allegations against Scott, Lisenbee, Kelly, and
Shults fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Monell v. Dep 't of Social

Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978).
Additionally, as the Court previously stated, plaintiffs claims against the Sherriffs
Department is legally frivolous because it cannot be sued under§ 1983. See Ketchum v. City of

West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992) (departments or subdivisions of local
government are "not juridical entities suable as such."). Consequently, this action is dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.

Dated this 29th day of August, 2016.

.ROSS
ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3