Oberlander v. State Farm Insurance
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 forthwith. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on February 22, 2017. (BRP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
STATE FARM INSURANCE,
No. 4:17-CV-748 RLW
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 complaint is dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
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.
Plaintiff was severely injured in an auto accident on February 15, 2012. The other driver
was insured by defendant State Farm Insurance ("State Farm"). She complains that State Farm
only offered to pay her $5 ,000 to compensate her for her injuries, despite their severity. She
believes defendant's offer violated her civil rights under the Constitution of the United States.
The complaint is legally frivolous.
First, the allegations do not rise to the level of a
constitutional violation. Second, State Farm is not a "state actor" under § 1983, and there are no
allegations that defendant conspired with a state actor to violate her rights. See Mershon v.
Beasley, 994 F.2d 449, 451 (8th Cir. 1993) ("a plaintiff seeking to hold a private party liable
under § 1983 must allege, at the very least, that there was a mutual understanding, or a meeting
of the minds, between the private party and the state actor."). As a result, this action must be
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 forthwith .
UNITED 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?