United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
PAUL W. KRAUSS, Plaintiff,
JAY HOLCOMB, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS 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 $10.00, which is reasonable
based en the information the Court has about plaintiffs
finances. See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d
481, 484 (8th Cir. 1997). 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 catmiss 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 roust 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.
an inmate at Mississippi County Detention Center
(''MCDC"), filed this civil rights action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the MCDC violated his Eighth
Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment.
He also brings claims against two individual defendants, Jay
Holcomb and Faith [Unknown], alleging these defendants stole
his cell phone from his personal property. Plaintiff has aiso
nameo, as defendants the Missouri Highway Patrol and Judge S.
alleges two claims under the Eighth Amendment, one for
failure to treat his tendonitis in his right wrist, and one
for failure to treat his suicidal thoughts. Plaintiff alleges
the tendon in his wrist snapped, causing him intense pain,
and tie was not taken to the emergency room for four and a
half hours. He also alleges unnamed start at the MCDC were
told he was suicidal, but it took staff thirty-five days to
prescribe medication and counseling.
plaintiff alleges due process violations against Judge S. Rob
Barker for allegedly improperly signing a search warrant. For
relief, plaintiff seeks monetary damages of $1, 000, 000.00.
basic claims are twofold: (1) defendants Jay Holcomb and
Faith [Unknown] stole his phone; and (2) defendants violated
his Eighth Amendment rights when they (a) did not immediately
send him to the emergency room after his tendon injury, and
(b) did not give him medications and counseling for
thirty-five days after notice that he was suicidal.
plaintiffs complaints that defendant; Holcomb and Faith
[Unknown] stole his phone, there is no cause of action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unconstitutional taking of personal
property where the state provides an adequate
post-deprivation remedy. E.g., Clark v. Kansas City Mo.
Sch. Dist., 375 F.3d 693, 703 (8th Cir. 2004). if the
taking of property by prison officials is intentional and the
state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy, there is
no violation of due process. Hudson v. Palmer, 468
U.S. 517 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527
(1981), overruled on other grounds, Daniels v.
Williams, 4 74 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); Orebaugh v.
Caspari, 910 F.2d 526, 527 (6th Cir. 1990) (taking did
not violate due process because Missouri prisoner had
adequate post-deprivation remedy). Plaintiff does not allege
that he lacks an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Missouri
provides the post-deprivation remedy of replevin for recovery
of personal property. Id.; Mo. R. Civ. P, 99.01 -
99.15. As a result, plaintiffs complaint regarding the theft
of his phone will be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
plaintiffs Eighth Amendment medical claims, he states that he
has tendonitis in his right wrist. Before being incarcerated,
plaintiff's doctor told him that his tendonitis required
surgery. Plaintiff states his tendon "finally
snapped" at MCDC on November 22, 2017, but he was not
seen in the emergency room for more man four hours. Plaintiff
was treated in the emergency room, and he has not alleged any
further harm. Plaintiff does not allege that the brief delay
in treatment was responsible for aggravating his condition.
"The Constitution does not require jailers to handle
every medical complaint as quickly as eacb inmate might
wish." Jenkins v. County of Hennepin, Minn.,
557 F.3d 628, 632 (8th Cir, 2009) (citing Johnson v.
Hamilton, 452 F.3d 967, 973 (8th Cir. 2006)). A delay as
brief and as non-detrimental as plaintiff alleges does not
state a claim for deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs. See Johnson, 452 F.3d at 973
(concluding that a one-month delay m treating a
fractured finger did not rise to a constitutional violation);
Givens v. Jones, 900 F.2d 1229, 1233 (8th Cir. 1990)
(finding that a prisoner's claim for delay of one month
between complaint of leg pain and visit with doctor was
insufficient to state a constitutional claim absent
allegations the condition required immediate attention or the
delay in treatment aggravated the condition).
plaintiff states that he told 'ail staff' at MCDC
that he was suicidal but that it took "them"
thirty-five days to treat him with medication and counseling.
Again, plaintiff does not allege that the delay in treatment
was responsible tor aggravating his condition. Id.
Absent such allegation, plaintiff has failed to state a
plausioie claim, Moreover, plaintiff does not identify any
named defendant who deliberately disregarded his request. To
state a claim for cruel and unusual punishment, plaintiff
must allege that he had a serious medical need and that
defendant knew of and deliberately disregarded. See
Farmer v. Brennan, SI I U.S. 825, 834 (1994).
Plaintiff's statement that he told "all staff'
of his Suicidal thoughts, and it took "them" too
long for treatment is too conciusory to state a plausible
claim aosent any allegation that any defendant deliberately
disregarded his medical needs. See iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)
("Threadbare recitals of the ...