Atkins v. MO Department of Mental Health

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 3 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate o rder of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4 ) is DENIED as moot. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Sr. District Judge John A. Ross on 1/6/2025. (LNJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RUDOLPH ATKINS, SR.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF
MENTAL HEALTH,
Defendant.

No. 4:24-cv-01689-PLC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Rudolph Atkins’ motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee. The Court will
therefore grant the motion. The Court has also conducted the required review of the complaint and
has determined that the complaint must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Legal Standard
Federal law requires this Court to review a complaint filed in forma pauperis and to dismiss
the action if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This Court must liberally
construe a layperson’s complaint. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, even
laypersons must allege facts that, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v.
Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980).
The Complaint1
Plaintiff is a resident of the Metropolitan St. Louis Psychiatric Center in St. Louis,
Missouri. He filed the instant complaint against the Missouri Department of Mental Health

1

The Court quotes the text verbatim without noting or correcting any errors.

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In setting forth his claim, he states that he was found incompetent
and confined for five years. He writes: “No treatment was Ever done and Clayton County Sheriff
kept me Hostage.” (ECF No. 1 at 5). Where the form complaint provides space for Plaintiff to
describe his injuries, he writes: “Court Order was Never Executed in a timely manner creul and
unpsal punishment for 5 years/felony obstruction of Justices for 5 years P.t.S.D From this ordeal.”
Id. at 6. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief.
Discussion
Plaintiff filed the complaint pursuant to § 1983 to seek monetary relief from the Missouri
Department of Mental Health, a department of the State of Missouri. “Section 1983 provides for
an action against a ‘person’ for a violation, under color of law, of another's civil rights.” McLean
v. Gordon, 548 F.3d 613, 618 (8th Cir. 2008). However, the State of Missouri and departments
thereof are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police,
491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Plaintiff is therefore missing an essential element of a § 1983 claim.
Additionally, the Eleventh Amendment shields States and their departments from suit in federal
court. Webb v. City of Maplewood, 889 F.3d 483, 485 (8th Cir. 2018); Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty.
Coll., 72 F.3d 615, 618-19 (8th Cir. 1995) (“Generally, in the absence of consent, a suit in which
the State or one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the
Eleventh Amendment.”).
There are two recognized exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Barnes v. State
of Missouri, 960 F.2d 63, 64 (8th Cir. 1992). The first is “where Congress has statutorily abrogated
such immunity by clear and unmistakable language.” Id. The second is when a State waives its
immunity to suit in federal court. Id. at 65. Neither exception applies in this case. First, the Supreme
Court has determined that § 1983 does not abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from
suit in federal court. See Will, 491 U.S. at 66. Second, the State of Missouri has not waived its
2

sovereign immunity for this type of case. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.600 (explaining that sovereign
immunity is in effect, and providing exceptions).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court finds that there could be no non-frivolous basis to argue that the
complaint states a valid § 1983 claim against the Missouri Department of Mental Health or that
Plaintiff’s claims are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Court will therefore certify that
an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Finally, the Court will deny as moot Plaintiff’s motion
seeking the appointment of counsel.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF
No. 4) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 6th day of January 2025.

__________________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3