United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Rochell Isom seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this
civil action. Having reviewed plaintiffs financial
information, the Court will grant the motion. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a). After initial review of the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), however, the
Court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
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 under § 1983, 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.
brings this action against the St. Louis City Housing
Authority and the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development ("HUD"). In her statement of her
claim, plaintiff states in full:
Property destroyed, homeless sabotaged covered up. (mold
problem) Sept. 28th 2018 reported mold problem told
inspection date was Sep. 30th. No. one showed up. Had to
reschedule appoint[ment] over phone with inspec. Supervisor.
Happened at 5641 Park Ln St. Louis, MO 63136. Suffered toxic
water poisoning breathing problem had to vacate premises.
Caused homelessness by not doing job and illnesses.
relief, plaintiff seeks damages of $50, 000 for pain and
suffering, $25, 000 for loss of dignity, and $25, 000 for
loss of property.
has not identified any statute or law under which she is
proceeding in federal court. Assuming she seeks to state a
cause of action or federal civil rights violations, the
complaint does not state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1981 or 1983 against either defendant St. Louis
City Housing Authority or HUD. Plaintiff alleges she
scheduled an inspection, presumably with the St. Louis City
Housing Authority, to inspect and correct a mold problem. The
inspector did no keep the appointment. Plaintiff rescheduled
the appointment. Plaintiff does not allege any facts
regarding the rescheduled appointment, but states she had to
vacate the premises because of "toxic water
poisoning" and "breathing problems."
construed, the Court cannot find that plaintiff has stated
any cause of action against the defendants. For example, she
does not allege defendants were responsible for her allegedly
sub-standard living conditions. Nor does she allege either
entity owned the property. To the extent plaintiff seeks to
sue the St. Louis City Housing Authority, these claims must
be dismissed as legally frivolous because this entity cannot
be sued. See Ketchum v. City of West Memphis,
Ark, 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992) (departments or
subdivisions of local government are "not juridical
entities suable as such."). As to defendant HUD, the
only method for suing a federal agency is to file a claim
under the Federal Torts Claim Act ("FTCA").
See 28 U.S.G. § 2679(b)(1); VS Ltd.
P'ship v. Dep't of Housing and Urban Dev., 235
F.3d 1109, 1112 (8th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff must show both a
waiver of sovereign immunity and a grant of subject matter
jurisdiction to sue HUD). Plaintiffs claims against HUD are
not brought under the FTCA, and the Court cannot find any
waiver of sovereign immunity. These claims, too, are legally
frivolous and will be dismissed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
[ECF No. 2]
IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) this action is DISMISSED without
IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to appoint