United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
ESLEY D. CORNELIUS, III Plaintiff,
BOB HOLDER, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon review of the amended
complaint. After reviewing the amended complaint, the Court
will partially dismiss the amended complaint and will order
the Clerk to issue process or cause process to be issued on
the non-frivolous portions of the amended complaint.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if it
"lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact."
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989);
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). An
action is malicious if it is undertaken for the purpose of
harassing the named defendants and not for the purpose of
vindicating a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes,
656 F.Supp. 458, 461-63 (E.D. N.C. 1987), aff'd
826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987). A complaint fails to state a
claim if it does not plead "enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
determine whether an action fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, the Court must engage in a two-step
inquiry. First, the Court must identify the allegations in
the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of
truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950-51
(2009). These include "legal conclusions" and
"[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action [that are] supported by mere conclusory
statements." Id. at 1949. Second, the Court
must determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim
for relief. Id. at 1950-51. This is a
"context-specific task that requires the reviewing court
to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."
Id. at 1950. The plaintiff is required to plead
facts that show more than the "mere possibility of
misconduct." Id. The Court must review the
factual allegations in the complaint "to determine if
they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief."
Id. at 1951. When faced with alternative
explanations for the alleged misconduct, the Court may
exercise its judgment in determining whether plaintiffs
proffered conclusion is the most plausible or whether it is
more likely that no misconduct occurred. Id. at
Esley D. Cornelius, III, an inmate currently incarcerated at
Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center
("ERDCC"), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights during
his pretrial incarceration at the Dunklin County Jail.
names as defendants in this action: Bob Holder (Sheriff,
Dunklin County); Tasha Nicole Green (Dunklin County Jail
Administrator); Ariel Doe; Alicia Doe; and Dunklin County
Officer Jane Does 1-2 and John Does 1-2. Plaintiff brings
this action against defendants in their official and
asserts that between the dates of September 22, 2012 and
September 26, 2012, he was detained at Dunklin County Jail.
He claims that he was "severely beaten" by another
inmate in E-Pod at the Jail right in front of
Dunklin County Jail Officer Ariel Doe and two other Jane Doe
Correctional Officers. Plaintiff asserts that the assault
occurred in front of the staff office where officers
monitored the security cameras at "all times." He
states that these officers failed to properly intervene in
the assault on plaintiff, and as a result, his jaw was broken
in the incident, and he had to be transported to the local
hospital for treatment. Plaintiff states, in a conclusory
manner, that defendants lacked "training and
supervision" in dealing with the assault by the other
inmate. He claims that the "bubble officers, "
presumably Jane Does 1-2 and Ariel Doe and Alicia Doe, should
have been able to break up the assault, but instead they
continued to watch the inmate beat plaintiff from two feet
alleges that the local hospital believed that his injuries
were "too severe, " and he was then taken to Barnes
Jewish Hospital in St. Louis for treatment by Sheriff Bob
Holder and two John Doe Correctional Officers.
claims he was at Barnes Jewish Hospital from September 22,
2012 until September 24, 2012, until he was asked if he had
insurance. Plaintiff states that the correctional officers
guarding him spoke to Jail Administrator Nicole Green on the
phone about the insurance matter and thereafter he was told
by the two John Doe Correctional Officers that they were
leaving the hospital without having his jaw fixed. Plaintiff
believes that Nicole Green and Bob Holder did not let Barnes
Jewish Hospital treat him for his broken jaw, but instead
brought him back to the Jail without obtaining treatment.
claims that when he returned to Dunklin County Jail on the
evening of September 24, 2012, he was placed in a single
holding cell where he was
"neglected." He was purportedly still suffering from a
broken jaw, which he claims was infected, and was not being
fed correctly, and was only sleeping on a mattress. Plaintiff
alleges that his mother hired a local attorney to work with
the prosecutor to lower his bond to have him released from
custody in order to have him returned to Barnes Jewish
Hospital to have his jaw surgery done under his own medical
insurance. Plaintiff claims he had to have titanium plates
placed in his lower jaw in order to fix his injury.
asserts that the defendant correctional officers failed to
protect him from an attack from the other inmate in violation
of the Eighth Amendment, which resulted in a serious physical
injury to his jaw. He also claims that defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in
violation of the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment in that they
failed to get him proper treatment for his jaw and then
delayed the treatment when they did not want to pay for the
jaw surgery at Barnes Jewish Hospital.
also brings a failure to train/supervise claim against Bob
Holder and Nicole ...