United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. 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 $15, which is twenty percent of
his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b). Additionally, this case is dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
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, 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.
reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. Furthermore, the
Court liberally construes the allegations.
is an inmate at the Ste. Genevieve County Detention Center.
On September 15, 2016, defendant Unknown Elms, who is a
deputy, failed to deliver his mail to the mail room.
Plaintiff alleges that Elms was retaliating against him for a
previous grievance. Plaintiff does not allege, however, that
his mail remained undelivered. Plaintiff says that defendant
P. Karol conspires with other officials to deny inmates'
succeed on his § 1983 retaliation claim, plaintiff must
prove that he engaged in protected activity and that
defendants, to retaliate for the protected activity, took
adverse action against plaintiff that would chill a person of
ordinary firmness from engaging in that activity. See
Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 876 (8th Cir. 2004),
cert. denied, 546 U.S. 860 (2005). Elm's failure
to deliver plaintiff's mail on one occasion would not
chill a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in the
grievance process. As a result, the allegations fail to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
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 a motion to
dismiss. See Mershon v. Beasely, 994 F.2d 449, 451
(8th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts
demonstrating a conspiracy. Moreover, denying an inmate's
grievance does not constitute a constitutional violation.
See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir.
2007). Therefore, this claim is frivolous.
plaintiff 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. As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an
initial filing fee of $15 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