Source: http://mo.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20141208_0001864.EMO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-02-23 22:56:23
Document Index: 349389379

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

| Davis v. Phelps County Jail
Davis v. Phelps County Jail
D'ANGELO ARNELL DAVIS, Plaintiff,v.PHELPS COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff, an inmate at Phelps County Jail, for leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that plaintiff does not have sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee and will assess an initial partial filing fee of $6.60. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 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).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), a prisoner bringing a civil action in forma pauperis is required to pay the full amount of the filing fee. If the prisoner has insufficient funds in his or her prison account to pay the entire fee, the Court must assess and, when funds exist, collect an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of (1) the average monthly deposits in the prisoner's account, or (2) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the prior six-month period. After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner is required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of the prisoner will forward these monthly payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the prisoner's account exceeds $10, until the filing fee is fully paid. Id. Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit and a certified copy of his prison account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the submission of his complaint. A review of plaintiff's account indicates an average monthly deposit of $33.00, and an average monthly balance of $.36. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $6.60, which is 20 percent of plaintiff's average monthly deposit.
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights. Named as defendants are: the Phelps County Jail; the Phelps County Jail Medical Department; the Phelps County Jail Correctional Officers; and the Phelps County Jail Medical Staff.
In his claim for monetary damages, plaintiff asserts that he is a federal prisoner currently being held at the Phelps County Jail. He claims that he asked for "mental health treatment" at the Jail, but that he was not provided such treatment. Plaintiff also asserts that he has requested medication for high blood pressure and high cholesterol, but he has not been given treatment for those requests. Plaintiff does not name the particular correctional officers that he made such requests to.
Plaintiff's claim against the Phelps County Jail and the Medical Department at the Jail are legally frivolous because the Jail and its subdivisions are not suable entities. 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.").
Additionally, plaintiff's failure to specifically identified which correctional and/or medical officers he made his requests to, as well as their responses, is fatal to his generalized claims against the Jail's "Correctional Officers" and "Medical Staff." "Liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the alleged deprivation of rights." Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990); see also Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (claim not cognizable under § 1983 where plaintiff fails to allege defendant was personally involved in or directly responsible for incidents that injured plaintiff); Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995) (respondeat superior theory inapplicable in § 1983 suits). In the instant action, plaintiff has not set forth any facts indicating that any of the named defendants were directly involved in or personally responsible for the alleged violations of his constitutional rights. As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim with respect to the "Medical Staff" and "Correctional Officers."
Even if plaintiff had articulated which specific individual defendants he wished to bring his claims against, the claims would still be subject to dismissal, as plaintiff has not indicated the capacity under which he is attempting to sue defendants. Where a "complaint is silent about the capacity in which [plaintiff] is suing defendant, [a district court must] interpret the complaint as including only official-capacity claims." Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995); Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1989). Naming a government official in his or her official capacity is the equivalent of naming the government entity that employs the official - in this case, Phelps County. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). To state a claim against a municipality or a government official in his or her official capacity, plaintiff must allege that a policy or custom of the government entity is responsible for the alleged constitutional violation. Monell v. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, ...