United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff
Anthony Miner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
in this civil action. Upon consideration of the financial
information provided with the application, the Court finds
that plaintiff is financially unable to pay any portion of
the filing fee. The motion will therefore be granted. In
addition, upon review the Court will dismiss the complaint,
Standard on Initial Review
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 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 under
§ 1983, a complaint must plead more than "legal
conclusions" and "[f]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.
se complaints are to be liberally construed. Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). However, they still
must allege sufficient facts to support the claims alleged.
Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir.
2004); see also Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282,
1286 (8th Cir. 1980) (even pro se complaints are
required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for
relief as a matter of law). Federal courts are not required
to "assume facts that are not alleged, just because an
additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger
complaint." Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15.
brings this action against the St. Ann Police Department. He
claims this Court has federal question jurisdiction over this
case due to "harassment, towing of my vehicle, illegal
search, improper [illegible], refusal of rights."
(Docket No. 1 at 3). For his statement of claim, he alleges:
They constantly harass me, tow my car, damage my personal
property, put dogs in my car, taze my daughter, harass my
Id. at 5. As relief, plaintiff seeks "cash
compensation for damages and pain and suffering" in the
amount of $25, 000. Mat 5-6.
Court has carefully reviewed and liberally construed the
complaint, and has determined that it must be dismissed.
Because plaintiff appears to seek redress for violation of
his civil rights, the Court construes the complaint as
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, the sole
named defendant, the St. Ann Police Department, is not an
entity that can be sued under § 1983. The complaint is
therefore legally frivolous. See Ketchum v. City of
West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (1992)
(entities such as police departments are "not juridical
entities suable as such"). Even if plaintiff had named
the appropriate municipality as a defendant, the complaint
would not state a claim of municipal liability because it
fails to allege a direct causal link between a municipal
policy or custom and any constitutional violation. See
Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of City of New York,
436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978).
addition, plaintiffs allegations are merely the "the
defendant unlawfully harmed me" accusations that the
Supreme Court has found deficient. See Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (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."). Having liberally construed plaintiffs
allegations, the Court concludes that they allege nothing
more than a "mere possibility of misconduct, " and
therefore fail to demonstrate a plausible claim for relief.
Id. at 679. This action is subject to dismissal on
this basis, as well.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No.
2) is GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate