Betts v. Wolfgram et al

Filing 3

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 the Clerk is directed to serve Defendant Dr. Edwin Wolfgram with process. Defendant should be served in accordance with the Court's waiver agreement with the State of Missouri, Department of Mental Health Employees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Dr. Tracey Fintel, Dr. Roy Wilson, Dalton Wilson, Ashley Wofford, and Ashley Jacobs are DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Partial Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 2/7/2017. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LAWRENCE SHERRON BETTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. EDWIN WOLFGRAM, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-298 AGF

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, the Court will direct the Clerk to serve Defendant
Dr. Edwin Wolfgram with process, and will dismiss the remaining Defendants without prejudice.
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.

The Complaint
Plaintiff is detained at the Metropolitan St. Louis Psychiatric Center pursuant to a court
order. 1 He denies having any mental or psychiatric difficulties. Regardless, he was found
incompetent to stand trial. He claims that Defendant Dr. Wolfgram forced him to take medicine
he did not want or need. His claim against Defendant Dr. Fintel is ambiguous. Fintel either did
or did not report that Plaintiff suffered from delusions and hallucinations.

There are no

allegations pertaining to the remaining Defendants.
Discussion
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Wolfgram for forcibly medicating him
should be allowed to proceed. Therefore, the Court will order the Clerk to serve Defendant with
process.
The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Fintel without prejudice because it
does not show facts indicating that Dr. Fintel violated his constitutional rights.
The complaint is frivolous with regard to the remaining Defendants because Plaintiff did
not allege they were personally involved in any violations of his constitutional rights. 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.”).
Accordingly,

1

The commitment order pertains to three pending criminal actions against Plaintiff in Boone
County: Nos. 15BA-CR00779-01, 15BA-CR00851-01, and 16BA-CR00540-01. He has been
charged with second-degree burglary, possession of marijuana, and driving while revoked.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve Defendant Dr. Edwin
Wolfgram with process. Defendant should be served in accordance with the Court’s waiver
agreement with the State of Missouri, Department of Mental Health Employees.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Dr. Tracey
Fintel, Dr. Roy Wilson, Dalton Wilson, Ashley Wofford, and Ashley Jacobs are DISMISSED
without prejudice.
An Order of Partial Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 7th day of February, 2017.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3