United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
BRIAN K. GEORGE, Plaintiff,
EASTERN RECEPTION, DIAGNOSTIC and CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the civil complaint filed by
pro se plaintiff Brian K. George, an inmate at the
Dunklin County Jail. Plaintiff initially commenced this
action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, which provisionally granted him leave
to proceed in forma pauperis and then transferred
the matter to this federal judicial district. Having reviewed
the motion to proceed in forma pauperis that
plaintiff submitted when he initiated this case, this Court
determines that plaintiff lacks sufficient funds to pay the
entire filing fee. The Court will therefore permit plaintiff
to proceed herein in forma pauperis, and will assess
an initial partial filing fee of $40.00, which is twenty
percent of plaintiff's stated average monthly account
balance. In addition, for the reasons discussed below, the
Court will dismiss the complaint.
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 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 six-month 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 $10.00, until the
filing fee is fully paid. Id.
motion that plaintiff filed when he initiated this case, he
stated that the average monthly balance of his prison account
is $200.00. The Court will therefore assess an initial
partial filing fee of $40.00, which is twenty percent of
plaintiff's stated average monthly balance. See
Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484 (8th Cir. 1997)
(when a prisoner is unable to provide the Court with a
certified copy of his prison account statement, the Court
should assess an amount “that is reasonable, based on
whatever information the court has about the prisoner's
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 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. An action is frivolous if it
“lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989).
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.
reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the
Court must give it the benefit of a liberal construction.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However,
this does not mean that pro se complaints may be
merely conclusory. Even pro se complaints are
required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for
relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623
F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980); see also Stone v.
Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (federal
courts are not required to “assume facts that are not
alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would
have formed a stronger complaint”).
complaint, plaintiff names the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic
& Correctional Center (“ERDCC”) as a
defendant, and alleges that filing fees were not sent from
his inmate account in June and July of 2016. He does not
allege that he suffered an actual injury to pending or
contemplated legal claims, or allege any other resulting
also names as defendants the Clerks of Court for the
“Farmington Missouri Federal Courthouse, ” the
“St. Louis Federal Courthouse, ” and the
“Dunklin County Circuit Court.” He alleges that
the Clerk of the Farmington Missouri Federal Courthouse
refused to file a “motion of habeas corpus after
postage of certified mail was paid through Bonne Terre's
ERDCC property room which should have taken care of initial
filing fee with notarization from caseworker.” (Docket
No. 1 at 5). Plaintiff alleges that the Clerk of the St.
Louis Federal Courthouse “sent complaint to Southeast
Division Cape Girardeau where known individual possible
defendants; federal agents, of allegations listed in Case #
1:17-CV-15-CAS.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that
the Clerk of the Dunklin County Circuit Court failed
“to acknowledge motions filed with other 3 defendants
failing to meet requests” in 2012 and 2016.
(Id.) Finally, plaintiff alleges that “all
have failed to meet requirements of job duties/discretion/
certification/license may be expired when asked by
certified/notarized request for evidence to be entered under
Supreme Court rule 25.05, disclosure of evidence in the
[illegible] for initial motion of habeas corpus.”
(Id.) He does not allege that he suffered an actual
injury to pending or contemplated legal claims, or allege any
other resulting harm.
seeks monetary damages of “millions, ” and states
that he wants “immunity declared, ” to be free
from retaliation for using the court system, his motions
acknowledged in Dunklin County Court, a fast and speedy
trial, correction of his driving record, and his ...