Murray v. Price

DAKOTA MURRAY,
Plaintiff,
V.
CHAD PRICE et al.,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
No. 1:25-cv-00115-NCC
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Dakota Murray, a self-represented prisoner, brings this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for alleged civil rights violations. (ECF Nos. 1, 7). He seeks appointment of counsel (ECF
Nos. 4, 9) and leave to proceed informa pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 8). For the reasons set forth below,
the Court grants Murray's motion to proceed informa pauperis and dismisses this action because
it seeks monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief and fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (iii).
I. 	Filing Fee
Congress mandates that federal courts collect a filing fee from a party instituting any civil
action, suit, or proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. Courts may waive this fee for individuals who
demonstrate an inability to pay. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(l). When a court grants such a waiver, the
plaintiff may proceed in forma pauper is.
To obtain informa pauperis status, a prisoner litigant must file an affidavit demonstrating
his inability to pay. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(l). In addition to the standard informa pauperis affidavit,
a prisoner must provide a certified copy of his inmate account statement for the "6-month period
immediately preceding the filing of the complaint." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
Case: 1:25-cv-00115-NCC Doc. #: 10 Filed: 11/07/25 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

If the prisoner litigant lacks sufficient funds, the Court assesses an initial partial filing fee
equal to 20 percent of the higher of the average monthly deposits or the average monthly balance
in the prisoner litigant's account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(l). After that, the prisoner litigant must
make monthly payments equal to 20 percent of the previous month's income until the prisoner
litigant pays the fee in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). "The agency having custody of the prisoner
shall forward payments from the prisoner's account to the clerk of the court each time the amount
in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid." Id.
Murray has filed two motions to proceed in forma pauperis and submitted a certified
inmate account statement for the period from November 10, 2024 through May 10, 2025. (ECF
Nos. 2, 3, 8). The statement reflects an average account balance of $7.50 and an average deposit
of $9.00. Therefore, the Court grants Murray's first motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
assesses an initial partial filing fee of $1.80, representing 20 percent of his average deposit.
II. 	Background
Murray is an inmate at the Southeastern Correctional Center in Charleston, Missouri. (ECF
No. 7). He filed his initial complaint in June 2025 before amending the complaint in October. (ECF
Nos. 1, 7). Because service has not yet occurred in this case, the Court accepts Murray's amended
complaint as the operative pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(l)(A).
Murray sues Sergeant Chad Price, Assistant Warden Matt Raymond, and the Missouri
Department of Corrections ("DOC"). (ECF No. 7 at 1-3, 15). He names Price and Raymond in
their official capacities only. Id. at 2-3.
Murray alleges that on January 26, 2025, Price sprayed him with a chemical agent while
handcuffed and chained to the floor. Id. at 3-4. Price then wiped Murray's face but denied shower
2
Case: 1:25-cv-00115-NCC Doc. #: 10 Filed: 11/07/25 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

access for approximately nine to ten days. Id. at 4. Murray reports eye injuries and psychological
trauma as a result. Id.
As for Raymond, Murray asserts that he failed to investigate Murray's complaints about
the incident and did not report it as required by DOC policy Dl-8.6. Id. at 5.
For relief, Murray seeks $5 million in damages. Id. at 8.
III. 	Standard
Because Murray is proceeding in forma pauperis in this matter, his amended complaint is
subject to initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). That provision requires the Court to dismiss
a complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. When reviewing a
complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court accepts the well-
pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and liberally construes the
complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). A "liberal construction" means that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, the district
court should construe the complaint in a way that permits the claim to be considered within the
proper legal framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). Even so, self-
represented plaintiffs must allege facts that, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter oflaw. Martin
v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980); see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15
(8th Cir. 2004) (refusing to supply additional facts or to construct a legal theory for the self-
represented plaintiff).
3
Case: 1:25-cv-00115-NCC Doc. #: 10 Filed: 11/07/25 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

IV. 	Discussion
Murray names as defendants the Missouri Department of Corrections, Assistant Warden
Matt Raymond, and Sergeant Chad Price. (ECF No. 7 at 1, 2-3). He sues the individual defendants
in their official capacities only. Id.
A suit against a state employee in his official capacity is merely a suit against the state
itself. Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531,535 (8th Cir. 1999). Absent a waiver, the
Eleventh Amendment bars suits for monetary relief against a state or its officials acting in their
official capacities. Morstadv. Dep'to/Corr. & Rehab., 147 F.3d 741,744 (8th Cir. 1998). Thus,
the Court dismisses this action because the defendants are immune from the relief sought. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).
Additionally, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "provides for an action against a 'person' for a violation,
under color of law, of another's civil rights." McLean v. Gordon, 548 F.3d 613, 618 (8th Cir.
2008). "[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are 'persons' under
§ 1983." Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Therefore, Murray's
claims are not cognizable under§ 1983, and in light of the Eighth Circuit's decision in Reynolds
v. Cook, the Court will not recharacterize the amended complaint to include individual-capacity
claims. See 2025 WL 670428, at * 1 (8th Cir. Mar. 3, 2025) (holding that a prisoner's express
designation of "official capacity only" forecloses recovery of personal liability and precludes the
court from construing the complaint to include individual-capacity claims). Accordingly, the Court
also dismisses this action for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
4
Case: 1:25-cv-00115-NCC Doc. #: 10 Filed: 11/07/25 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

V. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Murray's motion to proceed in forma pauper is,
assesses 	an 	initial 	partial 	filing 	fee 	of 	$1.80, 	and 	dismisses 	this 	action 	under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (iii).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Murray's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 2) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Murray must, within 30 days of the date of this order,
pay an initial partial filing fee of $1.80. He must make the remittance payable to "Clerk, United
States District Court" and include his name, prison registration number, case number, and a
statement that the remittance is for an original proceeding.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Murray's second motion to proceed informa pauperis
(ECF No. 8) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Murray's motions for appointment of counsel (ECF
Nos. 4, 9) are DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (iii).
A separate Order of Dismissal accompanies this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 7th day of November, 2025.
JO~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Case: 1:25-cv-00115-NCC Doc. #: 10 Filed: 11/07/25 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>