United States District Court, E.D. Missouri
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Steven
Mullins, an inmate at the Phelps County Jail, for leave to
commence this action without prepayment of the required
filing fee. (Docket No. 5). Upon consideration of the
financial information provided with the motion, the Court
will grant the motion and waive the initial partial filing
fee. In addition, plaintiff will be permitted to file an
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)
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 prison account to pay the entire fee, the Court must
assess and, when funds exist, collect an initial partial
filing fee of twenty 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 twenty 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
$10.00, until the filing fee is fully paid. Id.
support of the instant motion, plaintiff submitted a
“Resident Account Summary” form showing that
there had been no deposits made to his account, and an
average monthly balance of $0.00. The Court will therefore
waive the initial partial filing fee. However, plaintiff is
not excused from ultimately paying the entire $350 filing
fee. The agency having custody of plaintiff will be directed
to begin forwarding payments from plaintiff's inmate
account pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), until the
full amount of the entire $350.00 filing fee is paid..
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court shall 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). 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).
whether an action fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted requires a two-step inquiry. First, the Court
must identify the allegations in the complaint that are not
entitled to the assumption of truth. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950-51 (2009). These include
“legal conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are]
supported by mere conclusory statements.” Id.
at 1949. Second, the Court must determine whether the
complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Id.
at 1950-51. This is a “context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id. at 1950. The
plaintiff is required to plead facts that show more than the
“mere possibility of misconduct.” Iqbal,
129 S.Ct. at 1950. The Court must review the factual
allegations in the complaint “to determine if they
plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.”
Id. at 1951.
pleadings are liberally construed, and are held to a less
stringent standard when considering a dismissal of the case
for failure to state a claim. See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Horsey v. Asher, 741 F.2d
209, 211 n. 3 (8th Cir. 1984). Even so, a pro se complaint
must contain specific facts to support its conclusions.
Kaylor v. Fields, 661 F.2d 1177, 1183 (8th Cir.
initially filed the instant complaint in another case in this
Court, proceeding jointly with another prisoner and
purporting to bring claims on behalf of many other prisoners.
See Owen v. Lisenbee, No. 4:16-cv-1567-AGF (E.D. Mo.
filed September 30, 2016) (hereafter “Owen v.
Lisenbee”). On October 17, 2016, after noting that
multiple prisoners may not join together in a single lawsuit,
the Owen v. Lisenbee Court struck Mullins from that
action and opened the instant action as a new civil case,
utilizing the same complaint. Therefore, the instant
complaint purports to bring claims on behalf of multiple
prisoners, which is impermissible. See Georgeoff v.
Barnes, 2:09-cv-14-ERW, 2009 WL 1405497 (E.D. Mo. May
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will
provide him an opportunity to file an amended complaint
containing all of the allegations he wishes to bring against
each defendant. All of plaintiff's claims in this action
must be included in one centralized complaint form. Plaintiff
must not include exhibits, correspondence, or memoranda.
Plaintiff must follow the Court's instructions relating
to the filing of his amended complaint, as set forth below.
amended complaint must comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) requires that a
complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand
for the relief sought. Rule 10(b) requires that a party must
state his claims in separately numbered paragraphs, each
limited as far as practicable to a single set of
circumstances. In other words, the amended complaint should
not be overly wordy or repetitive. It should instead be
limited to the “who, what, when, and where” of
the facts of plaintiff's claim or claims.
must name each defendant against whom he is pursuing
allegations, and clearly identify each defendant by name and
title, as far as he knows it. Plaintiff must also articulate,
for each named defendant, the specific facts about
that defendant's alleged wrongful conduct.
Plaintiff's failure to make specific and actionable
allegations against any defendant will result in that
defendant's dismissal from this case. Plaintiff must also
specify the capacity in which he is suing each defendant,