Husain v. Smith et al

Filing 5

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 Ronnie L. White on 08/08/2017. (KCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

DAWUD AMEEN HUSAIN,
Plaintiff,

v.
KEVIN SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-1678 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, 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, 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.
The Complaint

Plaintiff was arrested pursuant to a traffic stop. He claims that he is a "Free Man," and
therefore, the police officer defendants did not have jurisdiction over him. He brings claims for
trespassing, robbery, extortion, kidnapping, and fraud.
Discussion

The complaint is legally frivolous because none of the allegations rise to the level of a
constitutional violation. As a result, this action must be dismissed.
Moreover, plaintiff did not specify whether he is suing defendants in their official or
individual capacities. Where a "complaint is silent about the capacity· in which [plaintiff] is
suing defendant, [a district court must] interpret the complaint as including only official-capacity
claims." Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995); Nix v.
Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1989). Naming a government official in his or her official

capacity is the equivalent of naming the government entity that employs the official. Will v.
Michigan Dep 't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). To state a claim against a municipality

or a government official in his or her official capacity, plaintiff must allege that a policy or
custom of the government entity is responsible for the alleged constitutional violation. Monell v.
Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). The instant complaint does not contain

any allegations that a policy or custom of a government entity was responsible for the alleged
violations of plaintiffs constitutional rights. As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

2

Additionally, complaint is frivolous against the Police Department defendants because
they cannot be held liable under § 1983. Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81,
82 (8th Cir. 1992).
Finally, to the extent that plaintiff is requesting this Court to initiate federal charges
against defendants, the request is frivolous. Initiation of a federal criminal prosecution is a
discretionary decision within the Executive Branch and is not subject to judicial compulsion.
See Ray v. United States Dept. of Justice, 508 F. Supp. 724, 725 (E.D. Mo. 1981); 28 U.S.C.
§ 547(1).

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 forthwith.
Dated

thi~-day of August, 2017.
.
/ ... / · L__
~,G. j{/7fZZL>
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3