Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. Sibert

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division

November 21, 2016

GEORGE E. BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM C. SIBERT, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, 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 $18, which is twenty percent of his average monthly balance. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Additionally, the complaint is partially dismissed.

         Standard of Review

         Under 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.

         When 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.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff brings several unrelated causes of action against defendants. Defendants are Chris Rataj, Detective; William Sibert, Deputy United States Marshal; Ned Boyd, Deputy United States Marshal; A. Johnson, Jail Administrator; N. Ems, Deputy Sheriff; and Patty Karol, Correctional Officer.

         Plaintiff alleges that defendant Rataj tased him during his arrest. He fell down, immobilized. Rataj tased him a second time while he was immobile. Plaintiff argues that the second shock constituted excessive force.

         Plaintiff says that defendants Sibert and Boyd transferred him to the Ste. Genevieve County Jail after a court appearance. He told the officials at the Jail he had sleep apnea and atrial fibrillation, but he says they did not treat his conditions. These defendants later transferred him to the Cape Girardeau County Jail. He says his conditions went untreated there as well.

         Plaintiff alleges that defendant Ems, who works at the Ste. Genevieve County Jail, gave him a conduct violation for not wearing his wrist band. He filed grievances about the violation. He says that Ems retaliated against him by transferring him to a different housing unit and assigning him to a top bunk. Plaintiff believes that the top bunk is dangerous, but he has not alleged he suffered any injury. Defendant Karol denied his grievances.

         Ems dispensed the antibiotic Bactrim to plaintiff. Plaintiff says defendant Ems should have known he would have a bad reaction to it. However, plaintiff took the drug. He had itching, swollen lips, chills, and pain as a result. He has not alleged that he made Ems or any other party aware of the possibility of a bad reaction to the drug.

         In his “motion requesting the Court to move case along on docket, ” he says he is suing defendants in both their individual and official capacities.

         Discussion

         Plaintiff's claims against the defendants are unrelated. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) provides: “Persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” In other words, “Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). In this instance, plaintiff's claim against Rataj is not related to his claims against any of the other defendants. As ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.