United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. 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 $1.00. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b); Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484 (8th
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 Nina Hill, Nurse Practitioner;
Paula Huffman-Reed, Assistant Warden; and Corizon, Inc.
Plaintiff says he has a medical lay-in for bottom walk and
bottom bunk because he is handicapped. He alleges he has a
gunshot injury to his cervical spine, nerve damage, and
muscle loss. He claims defendant Hill terminated his lay-in
and assigned him to the top walk and the top bunk. He says he
has fallen more than once as a result.
alleges that defendant Huffman-Reed knew about his complaint
but did not do anything about it.
Court is required to give plaintiff's allegations the
benefit of a liberal construction. See Solomon v.
Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) (“When
we say that a pro se complaint should be given liberal
construction, we mean that if the essence of an allegation is
discernible . . . then the district court should construe the
complaint in a way that permits the layperson's claim to
be considered within the proper legal framework.”)
(quotations and citation omitted).
this standard, the Court finds that the complaint states a
plausible claim for relief against defendant Hill. The Court
further finds that plaintiff has alleged facts that show he
is in imminent danger of serious physical injury due to the
serious nature of his injuries and the possible trauma that
could result from a fall. Therefore, the Court will order the
Clerk to serve defendant with process.
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.”); Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d
174, 176 (8th Cir. 1995) (“a general responsibility for
supervising the operations of a prison is insufficient to
establish the personal involvement required to support
liability.”). Plaintiff's allegations do not show
that defendant Huffman-Reed was directly responsible for his
cell assignment. As a result the complaint does not state a
plausible claim against her.
order to state a claim against Corizon, plaintiff must allege
that there was a policy, custom, or official action that
caused an actionable injury. Sanders v. Sears Roebuck
& Co., 984 F.2d 972, 95-76 (8th Cir. 1993). There
are no such allegations, and so the Court will dismiss
Corizon from this action.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis [ECF No. 6] is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing
fee of $1.00 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