McCoy v. St. Louis City Criminal Justice Center
Filing
6
OPINION 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 plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1 within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to Clerk, United States District Court, and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for an ori ginal proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 5 ] is DENIED without prejudice as moot.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith.An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 10/23/17. (KJS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RODERICK MCCOY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAINT LOUIS CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE
CENTER,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:17CV2247 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff had been an inmate at the St. Louis City Justice Center for only one
month prior to filing this action and requesting his inmate account statement. Having reviewed
plaintiff’s financial information for this month, the Court assesses a partial initial filing fee of
$1.00. See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484 (8th Cir. 1997).
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 brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Named as defendant is the St. Louis
City Justice Center. Plaintiff alleges he was denied his “religious practices” on July 2, 2017
because the St. Louis City Justice Center “decided they wanted to paint.” He also alleges he was
deprived of exercise, which he needs to maintain his blood pressure and cholesterol levels.
Finally, plaintiff states that as a pretrial detainee he “should not be subject to cruel and unusual
punishment.”
Discussion
The complaint is subject to dismissal because it is legally frivolous. Plaintiff names the
St. Louis City Justice Center as the sole defendant. However, jails and local government
detention centers are not suable entities. Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81,
82 (8th Cir. 1992) (departments or subdivisions of local government are “not juridical entities
suable as such”); see also Ballard v. Missouri, Case No. 4:13-CV-528 JAR, 2013 WL 1720966,
at *3 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 22, 2013) (holding that “[p]laintiff’s claims against the City of St. Louis
Department of Public Safety, the St. Louis County Justice Center, the City of St. Louis Justice
Center, and MSI/Workhouse are legally frivolous because these defendants are not suable
entities”).
In addition, even if the Court were to liberally construe plaintiff’s allegations as brought
against the City of St. Louis and substitute the municipality as defendant, plaintiff’s allegations
2
would not state a claim of municipal liability.
Liability under § 1983 may attach to a
municipality if the constitutional violation resulted from: (1) an official municipal policy; (2) an
unofficial custom; or (3) a deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise. Monell v. Dept.
of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); see also Veatch v. Bartels
Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining that under § 1983, the plaintiff
must demonstrate either that the municipality had a policy or custom that caused the
constitutional violation or that the municipality or a municipal employee exhibited deliberate
indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights by failing to adequately train or supervise its
employees) (citing City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989)).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1 within
twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance
payable to “Clerk, United States District Court,” and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his
prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for an original
proceeding.1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 5] is
DENIED without prejudice as moot.
1
Prisoners must pay the full amount of the $350 filing fee. After payment of the initial partial
filing fee, the prisoner is required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding
month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account. The agency having custody of the prisoner
will deduct the payments and forward them to the Court each time the amount in the account
exceeds $10. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 23rd day of October, 2017
___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?