United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The motion will be
granted. Furthermore, based upon a review of the complaint,
the Court finds that the complaint should be dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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 alleging violations of his civil rights
during his incarceration as a pretrial detainee in the St.
Louis County Detention Center. He asserts that he was
sexually assaulted at the Detention Center, and he names as
defendants the State of Missouri and Prosecuting Attorneys
Elizabeth Hanson and Unknown Ms. Nye.
generally asserts that “prosecutors are held to higher
standards.” He asserts that he exhausted his
administrative grievances by “confession of
matter” of “rape of inmate James Arthur
Blakemore, III, while unlawful detained for 352 days and
abuse of process with state.” Plaintiff also mentions
that he believes his rights under the Prison Rape Elimination
Act (“PREA”) have been violated, but he has not
provided the Court with any factual allegations surrounding
his conclusory claim.
plaintiff's request for relief, he seeks “remedies
for all violations and punitive damages paid to victim for
all crimes committed by government officials. . .”
Plaintiff seeks “approximately 6 billion or more for
it appears that plaintiff may have been harmed in some way
during his incarceration in the St. Louis County Detention
Center, plaintiff has not articulated exactly how the
State of Missouri and the defendant
prosecutors purportedly violated his
Constitutional rights. A Liability 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 also Martin v.
Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (claim not
cognizable under ' 1983 where plaintiff fails to allege
defendant was personally involved in or directly responsible
for incidents that injured plaintiff); Boyd v. Knox,
47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995) (respondeat superior theory
inapplicable in § 1983 suits). In the instant action,
plaintiff has not set forth any facts indicating that any of
the named defendants were directly involved in or personally
responsible for the alleged violations of his constitutional
rights. As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
extent plaintiff is attempting to bring a failure to protect
claim against an individual at the Detention Center, he has
failed to identify exactly who failed to protect him from
attack by another inmate and that the alleged defendant was
aware of facts from which they could infer the existence of a
substantial risk of serious harm to him. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836-38, 844 (1994).
if plaintiff is merely attempting to state that the
prosecutors were wrong in bringing a case against him such
that he should not have been in the Detention Center to begin
with, his claim is legally frivolous, as the prosecutors are
entitled to absolute immunity when they are acting as
advocates for the State of Missouri in a criminal
prosecution. Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d
1261, 1266 (8th Cir. 1996).
to the extent that plaintiff is attempting to sue defendants
under the PREA, the complaint is legally frivolous. The PREA
“does not create a right of action that is privately
enforceable by an individual civil litigant.” E.g.,
LeMasters v. Fabian, 2009 WL 1405176, at *2 (D. Minn.
May 18, 2009); Chinnici v. Edwards, 2008 WL 3851294,
at *3 (D. Vt. Aug. 12, 2008) (“The PREA is intended to
address the problem of rape in prison, authorizes grant
money, and ...