United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE, 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 $11, which is twenty percent of
his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b). Additionally, this action is dismissed pursuant to
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, Corizon,
Inc., the City of St. Louis Division of Corrections, OSHA,
the State of Missouri, 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, the kitchen is unsanitary, there is
lead in the building, 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.
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).
A governmental policy involves a deliberate choice to follow
a course of action made from among various alternatives by an
official who has the final authority to establish
governmental policy. A governmental custom involves a pattern
of persistent and widespread practices which become so
permanent and well settled as to have the effect and force of
Brockington v. City of Sherwood, Ark., 503 F.3d 667,
674 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). A plaintiff's failure to include any
allegations, reference, or language from which one could
begin to draw an inference that the conduct complained of
resulted from an unconstitutional policy or custom of the
governmental entity renders the complaint deficient as to
that entity. Crumpley-Patterson v. Trinity Lutheran
Hosp., 388 F.3d 588, 591 (8th Cir. 2004).
respect to Corizon, a healthcare provider, Plaintiff has not
included any allegations from which it could be inferred that
the alleged poor conditions of MSI are connected in any way
to Corizon. With respect to the City of St. Louis, Plaintiff
has not pled sufficient facts to infer that the poor
conditions resulted from the deliberate choices of City
officials with policy-making authority or that the poor
conditions were so continuing, widespread, and persistent as
to have become a permanent custom of the City. As a result,
Plaintiff's claims against Corizon and the City of St.
Louis must be dismissed.
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 ...