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, wherein plaintiff alleges that his civil rights have
been violated. After review of the financial information
provided, the Court will grant plaintiff's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915. 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.
John Cutts, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 alleging a violation of his civil rights. Plaintiff has
named as defendants in this action are St. Louis County,
Missouri and the Missouri Family Support Division.
claims that his due process rights were violated relating to
his probation requirements as to his criminal conviction in
St. Louis County Court for failing to make child support
payments. In this action, he claims disagreements with the
way his five-year probation sentence has been carried out by
St. Louis County Court, seeming to infer that some of the
requirements by the probation officer assigned to him, Ray
Morales, as well as the prosecutor and the Judge, have been
arbitrary and capricious.
asserts that he has remained in compliance with the terms of
his state court probation. However, he states that prior to
the end date of his probation, the prosecutor and Judge
worked together to extend his probation based on what he
perceives to be a misunderstanding that he had failed to
properly pay all of his ongoing his child support
payments. Plaintiff claims that the extension of the
probation resulted in lost job opportunities, embarrassment,
and a violation of his due process rights. Plaintiff asserts
that the Family Court prosecuting attorney attempted to have
him revoked from his probation even after he had paid his
full child support arrears and when his probation had been
discharged. He claims that in response, he filed a petition
for writ of prohibition with the Missouri Court of Appeals
who ordered the Missouri Circuit Court to file a response to
the writ of prohibition. Plaintiff claims that instead of
filing a response the Circuit Court canceled the revocation
hearing and discharged him from probation.
seeks monetary damages in an amount of $625, 000 in this
action against the Missouri .
asserts that the Missouri Family Support Division acted in an
unconstitutional manner to extend his probation by failing to
properly calculate his child support. Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages as a result of what he believes to be a
“due process violation” perpetuated against him
by the State of Missouri.
Eleventh Amendment bars a citizen from bringing suit in
federal court against a state, a state agency, or a state
official sued in his official capacity for monetary damages
which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury.
Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S.
58, 66 (1989). Only two exceptions exist to Eleventh
Amendment immunity: (1) “where Congress has statutorily
abrogated such immunity by ‘clear and unmistakable
language, '” or (2) where a state has waived its
immunity to suit in federal court, but “only where
stated by the most express language or by such overwhelming
implications from the text as will leave no room for any
other reasonable construction.” Barnes v. State of
Missouri, 960 F.2d 63, 65 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing
Welch v. Texas Dep't of Highways & Pub.
Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 473-74 (1987)).
is no indication that the State of Missouri has waived its
immunity from suit in this instance. Moreover, the state is
not a “person” capable of being sued under §
1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). Thus, plaintiff's ...