United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SHIRLEY PADMORE MENSAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
an inmate at the Northeast Correctional Center, seeks leave
to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action filed under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed plaintiff's
financial information, the Court assesses a partial initial
filing fee of $1.50, which is twenty percent of his average
monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
Additionally, the Court will require plaintiff to submit an
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.
reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the
Court must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal
construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in
favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly
baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33
alleges that he suffers from AIDS and has become underweight,
and that he suffers from asthma, severe pain, heel spurs, and
bunions. He alleges that defendants, employees of Corizon
Medical Services, have exhibited deliberate indifference to
his serious medical needs by denying him medication, adequate
nutrition, and proper footwear. The complaint does not
specify the remedy plaintiff seeks.
brings this action against Dr. Bonne Brennen in her
individual and official capacity, and against Tamara Anderson
and Maureen Banocy in their official capacities. See
Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72 F.3d 615, 619
(8th Cir. 1995) (where a complaint is silent about
defendant's capacity, the Court interprets it as alleging
only official-capacity claims); Nix v. Norman, 879
F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1989). To state a claim against a
Corizon employee in his or her official capacity, a plaintiff
must allege that a policy or custom of the employer is
responsible for the alleged constitutional violation. See
Sanders v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972,
975-76 (8th Cir.1993) (citing Monell v. Dep't of
Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56
L.Ed.2d 611 (1978)). The instant complaint contains no
allegations that a policy or custom of Corizon was
responsible for the alleged violation of plaintiff's
constitutional rights. As a result, it is legally frivolous
and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
as to all defendants in their official capacities.
complaint, plaintiff names as a defendant a nurse named
Pamela whose last name is unknown. However, the complaint
fails to allege that this nurse was directly responsible for
the alleged deprivation of plaintiff's rights.
“Liability 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.”). Because there are no
allegations that nurse Pamela, through her own actions, was
directly involved in the deprivation of plaintiff's
rights, the complaint fails to state a claim against her.
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 defendants in their individual capacities,
plaintiff must specifically say so in the complaint. If
plaintiff fails to sue any defendant in his or her individual
capacity, plaintiff's cause of action against that
defendant may be subject to dismissal.
amended complaint should not be overly wordy or repetitive.
It need only contain a short and plain statement of the facts
that plaintiff believes entitle him to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P.
8. In other words, the amended complaint should be limited to
the “who, what, when, and where” of the facts.
Plaintiff must also specify, in the amended complaint, a
demand for the relief he seeks. Id. Plaintiff must
state his claims in numbered paragraphs. Fed.R.Civ.P. 10.
Finally, plaintiff must use the Court-provided form, not a
handwritten reproduction thereof. E.D.Mo. Local Rule 2.06(A).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in
forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing
fee of $1.50 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