Mullins v. Lisenbee 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 this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 10/5/16. (JAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
RICHARD LISENBEE, et al.,
No. 4:16-CV-1484 JAR
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 plaintiffs financial information, the Court finds that he has no
funds to pay any portion of the fee. The motion is granted, and no initial filing fee will be
assessed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). Additionally, upon review the case is 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, 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 brings this action against 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.
The allegations in the complaint are duplicative of the allegations plaintiff brought in the
case Mullins v. Phelps County Sheriff's Dept., No. 4:16-CV-1188 JAR, (E.D. Mo.), which the
Court dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Plaintiff has added no new substantive
allegations. As a result and for the reasons previously stated, the complaint will be dismissed as
frivolous. E.g., Cooper v. Delo, 991 F.2d 376, 377 (8th Cir. 1993) (§ 1915(e) dismissal has res
judicata effect on future IFP petitions). The dismissal is without prejudice to refiling as a fullypaid complaint.
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.
Dated this 5th day of October, 2016.
ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?