United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. SIPPEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon review of plaintiff Hosea Lee
Robinson's motion for leave to commence this action
without prepayment of the required filing fee. For the
reasons stated below, the Court finds that plaintiff does not
have sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee, and will
assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The Court will also order
plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), a prisoner bringing a civil
action in forma pauperis is required to pay the full amount
of the filing fee. If the prisoner has insufficient funds in
his prison account to pay the entire fee, the Court must
assess and, when funds exist, collect an initial partial
filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of (1) the average
monthly deposits in the prisoner's account, or (2) the
average monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the
prior six-month period. After payment of the initial partial
filing fee, the prisoner is required to make monthly payments
of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to
the prisoner's account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The
agency having custody of the prisoner will forward these
monthly payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount
in the prisoner's account exceeds $10, until the filing
fee is fully paid. Id.
did not submit a certified prison account statement showing
the amount on deposit for the six months preceding the filing
of the complaint, but he did submit some financial
information. The Court will therefore require plaintiff to
pay an initial partial filing fee of $1.00, an amount that is
reasonable based on the financial information plaintiff
provided. See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484
(8th Cir. 1997) (when a prisoner is unable to provide the
Court with a certified copy of his prison account statement,
the Court should assess an amount “that is reasonable,
based on whatever information the court has about the
prisoner's finances.”). If plaintiff is unable to
pay the initial partial filing fee, he must submit a
certified copy of his prison account statement in support of
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 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Named as
defendants are the City of St. Louis Division of Corrections,
the St. Louis Justice Center, Corizon Health Services, and
Shelia Williamson, a medical supervisor. In the
“statement of claim” portion of his complaint,
plaintiff alleges that, from February 2016 to September 26,
2016, he requested but did not receive medical care for his
chronic medical and dental needs, and is in daily pain.
Plaintiff also states that grievances he filed were
improperly addressed. For his claim for relief, plaintiff
states that he wishes to be seen by his private medical care
providers, and he seeks $1, 500, 000.00 in monetary damages.
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
allegations of an official policy leading to the harm
plaintiff alleges he suffered. Therefore, the allegations
against Corizon are frivolous.
plaintiff does not state whether he is suing Ms. Williamson
in her individual or official capacity, or both. Therefore,
the complaint fails to state a claim against her. Plaintiff
also fails to properly allege the personal involvement of Ms.
Williamson. It is insufficient to name her as a defendant,
and then generally allege that medical treatment was refused.
Plaintiff is required to specify the manner in which each
named defendant was directly responsible for the alleged
harm. A federal complaint must contain the “who, what,
when and where” of what happened, and each defendant
must be linked to a particular action.
the City of St. Louis Division of Corrections and the St.
Louis Justice Center are not suable entities. Ketchum v.
City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir.
1992) (departments or subdivisions of local government are
“not juridical entities suable as such”);
Catlett v. Jefferson County, 299 F.Supp.2d 967,
968-69 (E.D. Mo. 2004). Plaintiff's claims against those
defendants are therefore legally frivolous, and subject to
dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will allow him to
file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is warned that the
filing of an amended complaint replaces the original
complaint, and so he must include each and every one of his
claims in the amended complaint. E.g., In re
Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees
Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005). Any
claims from the original complaint that are not included in
the amended complaint will be considered abandoned.
Id. Plaintiff must allege how each and every
defendant is directly responsible for the alleged harm. In
order to sue a defendant in his or her individual capacity,