Johnson v. Missouri Department of Mental Health et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc.# 2 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint because the complai nt is legally frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. # 3 ] is DENIED AS MOOT. An appropriate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 6/12/17. (EAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RAYFIELD JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MISSOURI DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH
et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-1521 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Rayfield Johnson, a detainee at the
Sexual Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services (“SORTS”), for leave to commence this
action without prepayment of the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Upon consideration of
the financial information provided with the motion, the Court finds that plaintiff is financially
unable to pay any portion of the filing fee. As a result, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Additionally, the Court has reviewed the
complaint and will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action
is legally frivolous if Ait 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 Aclearly baseless@;
alleged facts are clearly baseless if they are Afanciful,@ Adelusional,@ or Afantastic.@ Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted if does not plead Aenough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action against the Missouri Department of Mental Health, Fulton
State Hospital and the Missouri State Government. He also names Governor Jeremiah Jay Nixon
as a defendant in this action, as well as Director of the Dept. of Mental Health, Mark Stringer,
and former Director, Keith Schafer.
Plaintiff asserts that defendants are liable for his physical and mental “psychiatric abuse,
emotional distress and mental suffering.” Plaintiff states that defendants failed to have his mother
contacted and have misappropriated state funds by using banks and lending to private sources.
Plaintiff does not believe money is being used in the SORTS program for real therapies, and he
states that millions of dollars are being defrauded from the federal government.
Discussion
The instant action will be dismissed as factually frivolous under Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). Additionally, a claim against the Missouri Department of Mental
Health and Fulton State Hospital is, in effect, a claim against the State of Missouri. The State of
Missouri, however, is absolutely immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Will v.
Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63 (1989). Similarly, plaintiff’s claims against the
individual defendants in their official capacity are also subject to dismissal. Id. Plaintiff’s claims
against the individual defendants in their individual capacity are subject to dismissal because
plaintiff has not set forth any facts indicating that any of the named defendants were directly
involved in or personally responsible for the alleged violations of his constitutional rights. See
Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990); see also Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d
2

1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (claim not cognizable under § 1983 where plaintiff fails to allege
defendant was personally involved in or directly responsible for incidents that injured plaintiff);
Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995) (respondeat superior theory inapplicable in §
1983 suits).1
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc.
#2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to
issue upon the complaint because the complaint is legally frivolous or fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or both.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc.
#3] is DENIED AS MOOT.
An appropriate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 12th day of June, 2017.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The complaint does not contain any allegations relative to the “John and Jane Doe Defendants”
named in the caption of the complaint. Therefore, these defendants are also subject to dismissal at
this time. See Estate of Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995) (suit naming Avarious
other John Does to be named when identified@ not permissible).
3