United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY 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 $14, which is twenty percent of
his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b). Additionally, this action is dismissed under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e).
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 St. Louis Medium Security Institution
(“MSI”). He sues the City of St. Louis, the State
of Missouri, Corizon, Inc., the City of St. Louis Division of
Corrections, OSHA, and Mayor Francis G. Slay.
alleges that MSI is overcrowded, the ventilation is
inadequate, the building is condemned, there are vermin,
there is black mold, the building does not comply with fire
and safety regulations, and that the building is not
adequately maintained. He says that OSHA has not properly
monitored the safety of the institution. He claims that other
inmates have been affected by the conditions. He does not
allege, however, to have been personally injured.
se litigant may bring his own claims to federal court without
counsel, but not the claims of others. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1654. Consequently, this action is legally frivolous.
to state a claim against the City of St. Louis or Corizon, a
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). Plaintiff has not
made any such allegations. As a result, these defendants must
claim against the City of St. Louis Division of Corrections
is legally frivolous because it cannot be sued. 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.”).
claim against the State of Missouri is barred by sovereign
immunity. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159,
165-66 (1985); Murphy v. Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750, 754
(8th Cir. 1997).
only method for suing a federal agency, such as the United
States Department of Labor, which oversees OSHA, is to file a
claim under the Federal Torts Claim Act. See 28
U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). ...