United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY 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 $25, which is twenty percent of
his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b). Additionally, the complaint 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.
brings this action against Alan Earls, Deputy Division
Director, Division of Adult Institutions; Troy Steele,
Warden, Eastern Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center
(ERDCC); and Douglas Prudden, Warden, Tipton Correctional
plaintiff was in custody at ERDCC, he had a seizure. He says
a correctional officer assaulted him while he was seizing. He
was taken to the hospital. When he returned to ERDCC he was
placed in administrative segregation. He was written up for
drug use and assaulting prison staff.
ordered to submit a blood sample, and he refused. He
complains that his blood was taken involuntarily.
later transferred to TCC, where he had another seizure. He
says he was not given enough seizure medicine.
to his exhibits, defendants only involvement was to deny his
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.”); Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d
174, 176 (8th Cir. 1995) (“a general responsibility for
supervising the operations of a prison is insufficient to
establish the personal involvement required to support
liability.”); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,
609 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Only persons who cause or
participate in the [constitutional] violations are
responsible. Ruling against a prisoner on an administrative
complaint does not cause or contribute to the
violation.”). As a result, the complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
plaintiff sues defendants in their official capacities.
Naming a government official in his or her official capacity
is the equivalent of naming the government entity that
employs the official, in this case the State of Missouri.
Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S.
58, 71 (1989). “[N]either a State nor its officials
acting in their official capacity are ...