United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Cornelius Williams, Jr. (registration no. 185413), an inmate at Southeast Correctional Center ("SECC"), 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 $13.48. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Additionally, the Court will order plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)
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 sixmonth 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 $67.42, and an average monthly balance of $57.90. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $13.48, which is 20 percent of plaintiff's average monthly deposit.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). An action is malicious if it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing the named defendants and not for the purpose of vindicating a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F.Supp. 458, 461-63 (E.D. N.C. 1987), aff'd 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Plaintiff, an inmate at Southeast Correctional Center, seeks monetary relief in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against twenty-six (26) named defendants, all but four of which are employed by the State of Missouri. The remainder of the defendants are employed by Correctional Medical Services("CMS")/Corizon, Inc. Plaintiff's allegations arise out of a host of different occurrences that took place from the Fall of 2009 and continued through the Summer of 2013.
For example, plaintiff claims he was placed in administrative segregation in violation of his due process rights for a term of 431 days. He also claims that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment during his incarceration in administrative segregation, and constantly subjected to false conduct violations, daily harassment and fraudulent write-ups. Plaintiff claims that these actions were taken by a plethora of different defendants at many different times throughout a four-year period.
He further asserts that his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act were violated in an abundance of ways during that period. For example, he names a long list of places and facilities in the prison that were not handicapped accessible, in addition to many instances he believed he was being subjected to discrimination on the basis of an alleged disability by several different defendants.
Plaintiff additionally claims that he was denied proper medical treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment on numerous occasions, including: (1) to and from trips to an outside hospital; (2) several times when he sought medical treatment for difficulty with his blood sugar, especially times when he was forced to hit the medical emergency button in his cell and several of the defendant guards ignored him; (3) an occasion where he alleges he had a bad reaction to the medication amitriptyline and he was accused of attempting escape; (4) several times when he was denied timely refills of medication and suffered what he believed to be adverse medical consequences; and (5) several times he was denied "diabetic diet bags" due to what plaintiff believes was a cost-saving measure for CMS/Corizon.
Plaintiff also claims he was unfairly subjected to retaliatory punishment as a result of filing grievances against certain defendants. Plaintiff further believes he was unlawfully denied property, and he claims he was denied due process in his attempts to seek return of his property. Plaintiff additionally alleges a denial of his First Amendment rights claim, alleging that he was denied access to the Courts at some point during his incarceration.
The aforementioned are but samples of the numerous allegations plaintiff asserts against the twenty-six named defendants in his almost sixty-page complaint. The separate claims bear little or no relationship to each other, despite plaintiff's repeated assertion that his allegations arise out of one occurrence that took place on June 4, 2010, and his conclusory statements ...