Winters v. Callahan

E.D. Missouri

Winters v. Callahan

512 F. Supp. 11, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11685

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri

DecidedJanuary 26, 1981

DocketNo. 80-739C(3)

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 512 F. Supp. 11 (Winters v. Callahan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Winters v. Callahan, 512 F. Supp. 11, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11685 (E.D. Mo. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FILIPPINE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on defendant Richard Callahan’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff, a prisoner, has filed a pro se complaint alleging deprivations of his civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that the deprivations are in retaliation for his being called as a witness on behalf of Melvin Leroy Tyler. According to plaintiff, defendant Beck introduced himself as the investigator for defendant Callahan, the prosecutor, and threatened him that he had better not testify if he knew what was good for him. Plaintiff did not testify. Plaintiff further alleges that there has been a conspiracy to delay plaintiff’s post-conviction relief because he was called as a witness in the Tyler case. He does not allege that defendant Callahan has been one of the co-conspirators.

A pro se complaint is to be construed liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Haggy v. Solem, 547 F.2d 1363 (8th Cir. 1977). But even construing this complaint liberally, there are no factual allegations made against defendant Callahan. Because there is no vicarious liability under § 1983, Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976), defendant Callahan is not potentially liable merely because his investigator allegedly threatened plaintiff. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Callahan’s motion to dismiss be and is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s claim against defendant Callahan be and is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FILIPPINE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on defendant Richard Callahan’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff, a prisoner, has filed a pro se complaint alleging deprivations of his civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that the deprivations are in retaliation for his being called as a witness on behalf of Melvin Leroy Tyler. According to plaintiff, defendant Beck introduced himself as the investigator for defendant Callahan, the prosecutor, and threatened him that he had better not testify if he knew what was good for him. Plaintiff did not testify. Plaintiff further alleges that there has been a conspiracy to delay plaintiff’s post-conviction relief because he was called as a witness in the Tyler case. He does not allege that defendant Callahan has been one of the co-conspirators.

A pro se complaint is to be construed liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Haggy v. Solem, 547 F.2d 1363 (8th Cir. 1977). But even construing this complaint liberally, there are no factual allegations made against defendant Callahan. Because there is no vicarious liability under § 1983, Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976), defendant Callahan is not potentially liable merely because his investigator allegedly threatened plaintiff. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Callahan’s motion to dismiss be and is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s claim against defendant Callahan be and is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

512 F. Supp. 11, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winters-v-callahan-moed-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack