United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. Hamilton UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this
civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed
plaintiff's financial information, the Court assesses a
partial initial filing fee of $20, which is twenty percent of
his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b). Additionally, this action is dismissed.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To state a claim for relief, a complaint must plead
more than “legal conclusions” and
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action [that are] supported by mere conclusory
statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim
for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of
misconduct.” Id. at 679. “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense. Id. at 679.
reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. Furthermore, the
Court liberally construes the allegations.
brings this action against the Missouri Board of Probation
and Parole, alleging that it has violated his right to due
process by refusing to grant him conditional release. He says
other inmates with multiple murder convictions have been
released, so he believes he is being denied equal protection
under the law. He also claims that the Board has wrongly
withheld parole because of community opposition.
inmate does not have a constitutionally-protected liberty
interest in the possibility of parole, and [the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit] has held that the
Missouri parole statutes ‘create no liberty
interest' under state law in the parole board's
discretionary decisions.” Adams v Agniel, 405
F.3d 643, 645 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Greenholtz v.
Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corrections, 442 U.S. 1,
9-11, (1979)). Therefore, he has not stated a plausible claim
for violation of his right to due process.
plaintiff must “allege and prove something more than
different treatment by government officials” to state
an equal protection claim. Batra v. Bd. of Regents of
Univ. of Nebraska, 79 F.3d 717, 721 (8th Cir. 1996).
“[T]he key requirement is that plaintiff allege and
prove unlawful, purposeful discrimination.”
Id. at 722; see Albright v. Oliver, 975
F.2d 343, 348 (7th Cir.1992) (“you must be singled out
because of your membership in the class, and not just be the
random victim of governmental incompetence”),
aff'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 266 (1994);
Booher v. United States Postal Serv., 843 F.2d 943,
944 (6th Cir.1988) (“[t]he equal protection concept
does not duplicate common law tort liability by conflating
all persons not injured into a preferred class”);
Joyce v. Mavromatis, 783 F.2d 56, 57 (6th Cir.1986)
(“[t]he equal protection argument fails here because
the wrong is not alleged to be directed toward an individual
as a member of a class or group singled out for
discriminatory treatment”). Plaintiff has not alleged
that he has been discriminated against because of his
membership in a class. As a result, this action is frivolous.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing
fee of $20 within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this
Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable
to “Clerk, United States District Court, ” and to
include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration
number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is
for an original proceeding.
FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
Order of Dismissal will ...