United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. BODENHAUSEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant Jefferson County
Jail's (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 5). On March 3, 2017, this Court entered a show cause
order directing Plaintiff Michael Glenn Kuehle, Jr.
(“Plaintiff”) to show cause in writing no later
than April 3, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed
for the reasons asserted by Defendant in its motion. (ECF No.
11) In that Order, the Court warned Plaintiff that failure to
timely comply as ordered may result in the dismissal of the
cause. A review of the Court file shows that the deadline has
passed and Plaintiff has neither complied with the show cause
order nor requested additional time to comply. All matters
are pending before the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge, with consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
filed this cause of action in the Circuit Court of the 23rd
Judicial Circuit on October 24, 2016, asserting that while he
was incarcerated at Jefferson County Jail, correctional
officers and shift supervisors (collectively
“jailers”) violated his Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights. Plaintiff states that the jailers knowingly
and intentionally disregarded his serious medical condition,
celiac disease, by not providing gluten free meals every
February 2, 2017, Defendant removed this cause of action
noting that this Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The undersigned finds
that jurisdiction appears to be proper.
purpose of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. To survive
a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, “a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. V.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim for relief
“must include sufficient factual information to provide
the ‘grounds' on which the claim rests, and to
raise a right to relief above a speculative level.”
Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544,
549 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555 & n.3). This obligation requires a plaintiff to plead
“more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all of the
factual allegations contained in the complaint, even if it
appears that “actual proof of those facts is
improbable, ” and reviews the complaint to determine
whether its allegations show that the pleader is entitled to
relief. Id. at 555-56; Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8(a)(2).
The principle that a court must accept as true all of the
allegations contained in a complaint do not apply to legal
conclusions, however. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
states that the jailers knowingly and intentionally refused
to honor his medical diet by providing gluten free meals. The
Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment is violated if an inmate is not provided with
meals adequate to maintain his health. See e.g.,
Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 1996);
Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992)
(prisoners have a right to nutritionally adequate food);
Campbell v. Cauthron, 623 F.2d 503, 508 (8th Cir.
1980) (prisoners are guaranteed a reasonably adequate diet).
1983 only authorizes suits against any person acting under
color of state law who subjects a citizen to the deprivation
of constitutional rights. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 49 (1988). “County jails are not legal entities
amenable to suit.” Owens v. Scott County Jail,
328 F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (deciding
“county jails are not legal entities amenable to
suit”); see also Marsden v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 856 F.Supp. 832, 836 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
(“jail is not an entity that is amenable to
suit”); Powell v. Cook County Jail, 814
F.Supp. 757 (N.D.Ill. 1993) (jail not subject to suit).
Complaint, the only party Plaintiff named as a defendant is
Jefferson County Jail. (ECF No. 1-1, Complaint) Accordingly,
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a viable claim.
Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, this action will
a county jail is a distinct juridical entity not subject to
suit, Defendant Jefferson County Jail should be dismissed. In
the alternative, the Court also determines that dismissal is
appropriate pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, due ...