United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. SIPPEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the motion of Lamon Taneal
Hemingway (registration no.1101853), an inmate at Southeast
Correctional Center, for leave to commence this action
without payment of the required filing fee. For the reasons
stated below, the Court finds that the plaintiff does not
have sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee and will
assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.70. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Furthermore, after reviewing the
complaint, the Court will partially dismiss the complaint and
will order the Clerk to issue process or cause process to be
issued on the non-frivolous portions of 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, until the filing
fee is fully paid. Id.
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 $8.50. Accordingly, the Court will assess an initial
partial filing fee of $1.70, which is 20 percent of
plaintiff's average monthly deposit.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)
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 Alacks
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).
an inmate at SECC, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights. Named
as defendants are: Nina Hill; Kimberly Delisle; Michael
Loomes; Antonia Johaan; Unknown Robinson; Larry Graham; Megan
Crowe; Unknown Anderson; Cody Stanley; Jason Clements; Mark
Boyt; Ryan Welch; Unknown Medical Doctor; Cynthia Reese;
Heather Shirrell; Molly Unknown; Mark Curry; and Corizon
Healthcare Services. Plaintiff asserts that each of the
alleged defendants are current healthcare and/or mental
health employees at SECC, employed by Corizon. Plaintiff sues
defendants in both their individual and official capacities.
claims to suffer from a seizure disorder and to regularly see
nurse Nina Hill in a chronic care clinic at the prison. He
asserts that on February 2, 2017, he was seeing Nurse Nina
Hill on “sick call for other injuries, ” and he
began to tell Nurse Hill allegations about his purported
offender abuse claims, or use of the PREA mechanism at the
prison. Plaintiff also purportedly told Nurse Hill that he
believed some of his seizures where psychological in nature.
states that he believes that later in February of 2017, Nurse
Hill intentionally re-diagnosed all of his seizures as
psychological in nature, but she later refused
plaintiff's requests to be seen by mental health
providers at SECC. Plaintiff states that even when he placed
himself on suicide watch, Nina Hill refused to stop reducing
his neurological seizure medications, which plaintiff
believes she was doing in retaliation for his use of the PREA
reporting mechanism. Plaintiff additionally states that when
the mental health defendants stopped in to see him on suicide
watch, including defendants Curry, Molly Unknown, Cynthia
Reese and Heather Shirrell, they refused to do mental health
counseling with him, but only wanted to know if he was
actually suicidal or not. Plaintiff believes that the mental
health defendants' failure to treat his psychological
needs was deliberately indifferent to his documented
psychometric seizure disorder.
fails to state which of the purported defendants refuse to
adhere to his medical lay-in.
seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief in his ...