Opinion
Cause No. 3:04-CV-703 AS.
December 6, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Ladell Alexander, a pro se prisoner, submitted a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. FED. R. CIV. PRO. 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint, or any portion of a complaint, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court applies the same standard under § 1915A as when addressing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Weiss v. Colley, 230 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2000).
A claim may be dismissed only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Accordingly, pro se complaints are liberally construed.
In order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Supreme Court requires only two elements: First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of the right acted under color of state law. These elements may be put forth in a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). In reviewing the complaint on a motion to dismiss, no more is required from plaintiff's allegations of intent than what would satisfy Rule 8's notice pleading minimum and Rule 9(b)'s requirement that motive and intent be pleaded generally.Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations, quotation marks and ellipsis omitted).
Mr. Alexander is currently incarcerated for criminal confinement and child molesting. He brings this lawsuit attempting to collect, for himself, one million dollars from those he alleges should have, but did not, prevent him from committing these crimes. Specifically he alleges that the library security company and its supervisor should have called the police when they saw him trying to open doors on the third floor of the library. Mr. Alexander alleges that because they did not stop him while he was casing the library, "an innocent boy was victimized as well as the State of Indiana, St. Joseph County, and myself Ladell Alexander." Complaint at 7.
Ladell Alexander, by his own admission, molested an innocent boy. Though every decent and moral person wishes that he had been prevented from committing this hideous crime, no one owes Mr. Alexander anything for having not done so.
This claim is vile and malicious and this case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ¶ 1915A.
IT IS SO ORDERED.