Keel v. Clayborne, Jr et al
Filing
8
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 this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 9/13/16. (JAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI·
EASTERN DIVISION
)
STEVEN T. KEEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANNY CLAYBORNE, JR., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:16-CV-1448 JAR
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, upon review, this action is dismissed under 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, a civil detainee at Fulton State Hospital, brings this action against Danny
Clayborne, Jr., Detective, St. Louis County; Unknown Jones, Police Officer, St. Louis County;
the St. Louis County Jail; Unknown John and Jane Does Jail Staff at St. Louis County Jail;
Patrick Brayer, Assistant Public Defender; and Fulton State Hospital.
Plaintiff alleges that while he was in the St. Louis County Jail, he was threatened by John
and Jane Doe correctional officers and was not allowed to file grievances. He also alleges his
cell did not have water and he was punished for trying to get drinking water from other inmates.
Plaintiff claims he met a woman, Ms. Saddler, at a nightclub. He says her real name is
Ms. Jones and that defendant Jones is her father. He asserts that defendant Clayborne told him
he raped Ms. Jones and he was going to frame plaintiff for the crime. He alleges that Clayborne
and Ms. Jones were involved with a child kidnapping. He claims Ms. Jones would take him to
nightclubs and Clayborne would be there. He says, "[Ms.] Saddler is the victim. She need [sic]
you to help her please. Can you help her please. [sic] I am begging you to help her please." He
repeatedly requests that the Court help Ms. Saddler throughout the complaint. He says she "is
being used to set up men."
The state required plaintiff to undergo a mental examination during his criminal
proceedings. A forensic examiner found that plaintiff was mentally incompetent to stand trial,
and he was transferred to Fulton State Hospital for psychiatric care. He says the diagnosis is
false and that he has no history of mental illness.
Plaintiff alleges defendant Brayer did not do any investigation in his criminal case,
coerced him into pleading guilty, and did not object to the forensic examiner's findings.
2
In his request for relief, plaintiff asks the Court to help Ms. Saddler because she is being
used. He says he is not requesting relief on his own behalf.
Discussion
The Court is not a law enforcement or investigative institution. It cannot, therefore, grant
plaintiffs requested relief, and the complaint must be dismissed. Moreover, even if plaintiff had
requested relief on his own behalf, the Court would still dismiss the complaint.
An action is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact." Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action is factually frivolous if the facts alleged are
"clearly baseless"; alleged facts are clearly baseless if they are "fanciful," "delusional," or
"fantastic." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). Plaintiff's allegations regarding
Clayborne and Jones appear to have no basis in fact and may be delusional, thus these defendants
must be dismissed.
"[A] public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's
traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding."
Polk County v.
Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). As a result, plaintiffs allegations against Brayer are legally
frivolous.
Plaintiffs claims against the St. Louis County Jail and Fulton State Hospital are nut
suable entities and are legally frivolous. 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."); Will v. Michigan l)ept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63 (1989) (state
department entitled to immunity).
In general, fictitious parties may not be nam~d as defendants in a civil action. Phelps v.
United States, 15 F.3d 735, 739 (8th Cir. 1994). An action may proceed against a party whose
3
name is unknown, however, if the complaint makes sufficiently specific allegations to permit the
identity of the party to be ascertained after reasonable discovery. Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d 1254,
1257 (8th Cir. 1985). In this case, plaintiff has not alleged sufficiently specific allegations
against the John and Jane Doe defendants to identify them in discovery.
Therefore, the
complaint does not state a claim against them.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs 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 13th day of September, 2016.
.ROSS.
D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?