United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff's
amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court must review the complaint
and dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Upon review,
the Court finds that process should issue with regard to
defendants Bob Holder and Ned Boyd.
state a claim for relief under § 1983 and
Bivens, 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.
are Bob Holder, Sheriff of Dunklin County; Nicole Green, Jail
Administrator for the Dunklin County Jail; and Ned Boyd, U.S.
Marshals Service. Plaintiff alleges that he fractured bones
in his hand on June 12, 2016. He notified defendant Green,
who told him she would call the U.S. Marshals Service to find
out what could be done about the injury.
was done until June 30, 2016, when defendant Holder took
plaintiff to see a doctor. The doctor took an X-ray and told
plaintiff he needed treatment. The doctor explained that too
much time had elapsed between the injury and the X-ray for
regular treatment; plaintiff's hand would have to be
re-fractured in order to set correctly.
refused to allow plaintiff to have corrective surgery.
Instead, Holder told the doctor to give plaintiff a brace.
and Holder contacted defendant Boyd about plaintiff's
treatment options. Boyd also refused the doctor's
Court finds that plaintiff's medical mistreatment claims
against Holder and Boyd should not be dismissed at this time.
Therefore, the Court will direct the Clerk to issue process
on these defendants in their individual capacities.
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, 556 U.S. 662, 676
(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.”). There are no allegations showing that
Green withheld medical treatment from plaintiff. As a result,
plaintiff's allegations against her fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
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 plaintiff's constitutional
rights. Furthermore, the United States is immune from suit.
As a result, plaintiff's official-capacity claims fail as
a matter of law.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve