Phillips v. Grean et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. 2 Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 10/3/16. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CLINT PHILLIPS, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
DERRICK GREAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-CV-1234 JCH

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 is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e).
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 alleges that defendant Derrick Grean, a police officer, “falsely arrested” him on
June 2, 2016. Plaintiff was at the St. Louis Community Credit Union and he accused a teller of
“misappropriating” his funds. Plaintiff stayed in the lobby for ten minutes after his dispute with
the teller, and then he told one of the bank employees he was going to get lunch and come back.
When he arrived at the bank, Grean was waiting for him. Grean told plaintiff that the bank
manager would not allow him into the bank again. Plaintiff said he was booked and held for
twenty hours.
Discussion
Plaintiff did not specify whether he is suing defendants in their official or individual
capacities.

Where a “complaint is silent about the capacity in which [plaintiff] is suing

defendant, [a district court must] interpret the complaint as including only official-capacity
claims.” Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995); Nix v.
Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1989). 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, the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

2

Moreover, plaintiff’s allegations are entirely conclusory and do not state a plausible claim
for relief.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 3rd day of October, 2016.
\s\ Jean C. Hamilton
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3