United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. SIPPEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff's
amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). After
review, the Court finds that it should be partially
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 the City of University City and
several detectives with the University City Police
Department. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Fredrick Lemons
arrested him on a warrant from a different municipality,
refused to allow him to call an attorney, and took him to a
lineup at the St. Louis County Justice Center. He says that
defendants Carl Coleman and Dour Nodari separated him from
his attorney before interrogation. He claims the other
defendants were aware of the situation and
“participated.” The majority of the allegations
are wholly conclusory and do not allege facts which, if
proven, would entitle plaintiff to relief.
Court finds that the claims against Lemons, Coleman, and
Nodari should not be dismissed at this time. As a result, the
Court will serve these defendants 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 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (“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.”).
Plaintiff has not set forth facts showing that the remaining
defendants were personally involved with the alleged
violations. As a result, they must be dismissed.
extent that plaintiff is attempting to allege a conspiracy,
the claim fails. To properly plead a claim for civil
conspiracy under § 1983, a plaintiff must include
factual allegations showing a “meeting of the
minds” concerning unconstitutional conduct; although an
express agreement between the purported conspirators need not
be alleged, there must be something more than the summary
allegation of a conspiracy before such a claim can withstand
review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Mershon v.
Beasely, 994 F.2d 449, 451 (8th Cir. 1993). The
complaint does not contain more than summary allegations of a
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
complaint does not state facts showing that a city policy or
custom caused the alleged violations. As a result, plaintiffs
official-capacity claims, as well as his claim against
University City, fail to state a claim upon which relief can
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve
process on defendants Fredrick Lemons, Carl Coleman, and Dour
FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining defendants are DISMISSED
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs official-capacity ...