United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG, 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 $28.50, which is twenty percent
of his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b). Additionally, the Court will require plaintiff to
submit an amended complaint.
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 that defendants Justin Jones and Keith Coleman, who
are or were police officers for St. Louis County,
unjustifiably assaulted him and shot him with a Taser gun. He
suffered several injuries as a result, and he was transported
to St. Anthony's Medical Center's emergency room by
seeks to hold St. Louis County's General Counsel liable
under the theory of respondeat superior. He also wishes to
sue the St. Louis County Police Department.
complaint adequately alleges a claim under the Fourth
Amendment for unreasonable search or seizure against Jones
and Coleman. However, plaintiff has not alleged when the
alleged assault occurred. Therefore, it would be difficult
for defendants to answer the complaint. Plaintiff must file
an amended complaint, in accordance with the Court's
instructions, that better describes the incident.
complaint is frivolous against the St. Louis County Police
Department because municipal departments cannot be held
liable under § 1983. Ketchum v. City of West
Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (1992).
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). To be cognizable under § 1983, a claim must
allege that the defendant was personally involved in or
directly responsible for the incidents that deprived the
plaintiff of his constitutional rights. Martin v.
Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985). Claims
sounding in respondeat superior are not cognizable under
§ 1983. Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th
Cir. 1995). Consequently, plaintiff's allegations against
St. Louis County's General Counsel are frivolous.
must file an amended complaint in accordance with the
following instructions. He is warned that the filing of an
amended complaint replaces the original complaint, and so he
must include each and every one of his claims in the amended
complaint. E.g., In re Wireless Telephone
Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928
(8th Cir. 2005). Any claims from the original complaint that
are not included in the amended complaint will be considered
abandoned. Id. He must allege how each and every
defendant is directly responsible for the alleged harm. And
he must specify, to the best of his knowledge, the date on
which the incident occurred. In order to sue defendants in
their individual capacities, he must specifically say so in
the complaint. If he fails to sue defendants in their
individual capacities, this action may be subject to
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's
motion to proceed in forma ...