United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MICHAEL B. MOSELY, Plaintiff,
DR. UNKNOWN FATOKI, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD WEBBER, SENIOR 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 $42, which is twenty percent of
his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. §
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.
alleges he has severe dental problems that the medical
defendants have refused to treat. He alleges Sheriff Gary
Stolzer denied his grievances and failed to investigate the
Court finds that process should be issued on defendants Dr.
Unknown Fatoki, L. Miller, and Barbara Odem. The Court cannot
issue process on defendant Melissa Unknown at this time,
because it must have her last name to effectuate service.
However, the Court will not dismiss defendant Melissa Unknown
at this time. Plaintiff may attempt to learn her last name if
and when the Court authorizes discovery.
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.”). Plaintiff has not alleged defendant
Stolzer's direct involvement in the denial of his medical
care. As a result, the Court will dismiss Stolzer without
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing
fee of $42 within twenty-one (21) 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
number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is
for an original proceeding.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to issue process
on defendants Dr. Unknown Fatoki, L. Miller, and Barbara
FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will hold this action in
abeyance with ...