United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
RICHARD L. SIMMONS, Plaintiff,
DANNY DODSON, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ABBIE CRITES-LEONI, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) and § 1983 on the basis that defendants took his Social Security payments for the purpose of defraying the costs of detaining him at the Pemiscot County Jail (the "Jail"). To that end, he has filed several motions. All of the motions are denied.
1. Motion for Replevin/Conversion
Plaintiff seeks return of his payments under the alternate theory of conversion. He moves for an action in replevin under Missouri Court Rule 99.01.
This is an action under federal law, so Missouri law is not relevant. Moreover, it is well settled that where a state provides an adequate post-deprivation process for the loss, the Due Process Clause is not implicated. E.g., Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). The motion is denied.
2. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order on the basis that defendants are tampering with evidence relevant to his case. The motion is purely speculative, and it is not signed as required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is denied.
3. Motions for Leave to Add Former Defendants Bost and Greenwell
Plaintiff moves to amend his complaint by interlineation to add as defendants Josh Bost, Pemiscot County Jail Administrator, and Tommy Greenwell, Pemiscot County Sheriff, under the theory of respondeat superior. Plaintiff did not name these defendants in his amended complaint.
"Liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the alleged deprivation of rights." Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009) ("Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution."). Additionally, the Court does not allow amendments by interlineation. E.g., In re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005). The motions are denied.
4. Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Premature Response to Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff moves to strike his response to defendant Janet Warren's motion to dismiss. The motion is moot.
5. Motions to Compel Discovery
Plaintiff requests that the Court order defendants to produce his medical records and prescription invoices. The motions are premature because the Court has not authorized discovery. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 16-5.01, 16-5.04 (discovery in prisoner ...