Just v. City of St. Louis, Missouri et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of St. Louis Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. [Doc. 16 .] An Order of Dismissal will be filed contemporaneously with this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 7/17/18. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JEFFERY JUST,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:18-CV-424 NAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1
This matter is before the Court on Defendant City of St. Louis’ Motion to Dismiss Count
III of Plaintiff’s Complaint. [Doc. 16.] Plaintiff filed a response. [Doc. 17.] For the following
reasons, the Court will grant Defendant City of St. Louis’ Motion to Dismiss.
In Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim for violation of his civil
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based a theory of respondeat superior liability against the City of
St. Louis. Compl. ¶¶ 68-75. It is well established law that municipal bodies cannot be sued
under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Monell v. Department of
Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). A government, as an entity, is only
liable under § 1983, when execution of a government’s official policy or custom inflicts the
injury. Id. Plaintiff’s Complaint and response to the motion to dismiss acknowledge the relevant
case law and preserves the right to appeal any dismissal of Count III.
A defendant may file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
1

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).

face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume
their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Because the Supreme Court has held that respondeat superior liability is not cognizable
in § 1983 cases, Plaintiff would not be entitled to relief even if all of the factual allegations of the
Complaint are true. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendant City of St. Louis’ Motion to
Dismiss.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of St. Louis’ Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED. [Doc. 16.]
An Order of Dismissal will be filed contemporaneously with this order.

Dated this 17th day of July, 2018.

/s/ Nannette A. Baker
NANNETTE A. BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2