United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff
Martez Anthony Dickson (registration no.1035314), an inmate
at South Central Correctional Center ("SCCC"), 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 $7.91. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
Furthermore, based upon a review of the complaint, the Court
finds that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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
plaintiffs account indicates an average monthly deposit of
$39.58. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to pay the entire
filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will assess an initial
partial filing fee of $7.91, which is 20 percent of
plaintiffs average monthly deposit.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may 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 against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if "it
lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact."
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An
action is malicious when it is undertaken for the purpose of
harassing litigants 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).
determine whether an action fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, the Court must engage in 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." Id. The Court must review the
factual allegations in the complaint "to determine if
they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief."
Id. at 1951. When faced with alternative
explanations for the alleged misconduct, the Court may
exercise its judgment in determining whether plaintiffs
proffered conclusion is the most plausible or whether it is
more likely that no misconduct occurred. Id. at
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his civil rights. Thomas Kloeppinger, the Court
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, is the
only named defendant in this action. He is sued in his
individual and official capacity.
states that defendant Kloeppinger has interfered with his
civil rights by placing barriers in his ability to file a
writ of habeas corpus in St. Louis City Court. He claims that
when he attempted to file his writ of habeas corpus,
defendant Kloeppinger sent his habeas packet back to him and
asked him to "complete additional paperwork" prior
to filing his case. When plaintiff sent the additional
paperwork back to defendant Kloeppinger on March 28, 2017,
plaintiff was informed that he was unable to file his writ of
habeas corpus in St. Louis City Court. Plaintiff believes
this was a violation of his civil rights and he seeks to
bring an action against defendant Kloeppinger for interfering
with his access to Courts.
Court has reviewed plaintiffs filings on Missouri.Case.Net
and found that he attempted to file his state application for
writ of habeas corpus in his criminal case, State v.
Dickson, No. 22981-03434-01 (22nd Judicial
Court, St. Louis City). The Court Clerk docketed his
application for writ of habeas corpus on April 12, 2017, as
well as his "motion to grant immediate discharge"
on May 4, 2017 and his "motion for production of
documents" on May 19, 2017.
17, 2017, the Court notified petitioner that he had filed his
petition for writ of habeas corpus in the wrong Court.
Additionally, petitioner was told that he had failed to file
his petition as an independent civil action. ...