United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
WILLIE C. ROBERTSON, JR., Plaintiff,
FALITA BAINE, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this
civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed
plaintiff's financial information, the Court assesses a
partial initial filing fee of $3.00, which is twenty percent
of his average monthly deposits. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b). Additionally, this action is dismissed under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
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 under § 1983, 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.
brings this action against several officials at the St. Louis
City Justice Center (“SLCJC”). He was detained
there on criminal charges in February 2015. On February 11,
2015, he was told by a correctional officer that he had to go
to court. He took his legal papers with him, but he left his
personal property in his cell. Without being informed ahead
of time, he was taken to Fulton State Hospital for a
competency evaluation. He was there for six months. When he
returned to SLCJC, his legal correspondence and personal
property were missing. He complained to defendant Falita
Baine, but she did not resolve his grievance. Plaintiff
alleges he lost $100 worth of commissary items. He has not
recovered is property, although he did recover some of his
legal papers. He seeks $250, 00 in monetary damages.
is no cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
unconstitutional taking of personal property where the state
provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy. E.g., Clark
v. Kansas City Missouri School Dist., 375 F.3d 698, 703
(8th Cir. 2004). Missouri provides the postdeprivation remedy
of replevin for recovery of personal property. Id.;
Mo. R. Civ. P. 99.01 -99.15. As a result, his property loss
claim is frivolous.
state a claim [for denial of meaningful access to the
courts], inmates must assert that they suffered an actual
injury to pending or contemplated legal claims.”
Myers v. Hundley, 101 F.3d 542, 544 (8th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff has not claimed that he suffered any injury to his
legal claims. Therefore, his access-to-the-courts claim fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
there is no cause of action against a prison official for
failing to redress a prisoner's grievance. See, e.g.,
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007)
(“Only persons who cause or participate in the
[constitutional] violations are responsible. Ruling against a
prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or
contribute to the violation.”). Consequently, this
action must be dismissed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No 2] is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an
initial filing fee of $3.00 within thirty (30) 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.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is