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
plaintiffs financial information, the Court assesses a
partial initial filing fee of $1.20, which is twenty percent
of his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b). Additionally, this action is dismissed under 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.
brings this action against Corizon, Nurse Unknown Wooford,
Lieutenant Unknown Richards, and Correctional Officer Unknown
Hayles. He says Wooford refused to wear medical gloves when
administering his seizure medication. She also refused to
show him the "script card." He says he was afraid
to take the pills because she was not providing sanitary
conditions and because he did not trust that she was giving
him the right pills, and therefore, he refused to take the
pills of four separate occasions. On each of those occasions
he had seizures. He told Richards about Wooford's
actions, and Richards sent Hayles to investigate. Neither
Richards nor Hayles caused Wofford to change her practices.
state a claim for medical mistreatment, plaintiff must plead
facts sufficient to indicate a deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976); Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174,
175 (8th Cir. 1995). Allegations of mere negligence in giving
or failing to supply medical treatment will not suffice.
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. In order to show
deliberate indifference, plaintiff must allege that he
suffered objectively serious medical needs and that
defendants actually knew of but deliberately disregarded
those needs. Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239
(8th Cir. 1997). In order to state a claim against Corizon,
plaintiff must allege that there was a policy, custom or
official action that caused an actionable injury. Sanders
v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972, 95-76 (8th
has not alleged facts showing that Wooford was deliberately
indifferent to his epilepsy. Wooford offered him the
medication, and he refused to take it. He does not allege
that she actually gave him the wrong medication on any
occasion. Nor does he allege that he had seizures after
taking the pills she gave him. Even if regular medical
hygiene practices include wearing gloves while administering
pills, Wooford's refusal to do so does not rise to the
level of deliberate indifference. It amounts to negligence,
at best. As a result, plaintiffs allegations against Wooford
do not state a plausible claim for relief under § 1983.
claim against Corizon is frivolous because he has not alleged
that Corizon's policies or customs caused an actionable
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."); 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."). There are no allegations showing that
Richards or Hayles were directly responsible for a violation
of plaintiff s rights. Therefore, the complaint must be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing
fee of $1.20 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