United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Marquis
Bradford for leave to commence this civil action without
prepayment of the required filing fee. Having reviewed the
motion and the financial information submitted in support,
the Court has determined that plaintiff lacks sufficient
funds to pay the entire filing fee, and will assess an
initial partial filing fee of $4.55. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1). In addition, for the reasons discussed
below, the Court will dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
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.
support of the instant motion, Plaintiff submitted an
affidavit and an inmate account statement showing an average
monthly balance of $22.73. The Court will therefore assess an
initial partial filing fee of $4.55, which is twenty percent
of Plaintiff's average monthly balance.
Standard on Initial Review
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. To state a claim for relief under § 1983, 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,
inter alia, draw upon judicial experience and common
sense. Id. at 679.
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”). In addition, affording a pro se complaint
the benefit of a liberal construction does not mean that
procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation must be
interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed
without counsel. See McNeil v. U.S., 508 U.S. 106,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Named
as the sole defendant is the St. Louis City Justice
Center. For his statement of claim, plaintiff
writes: “City Justice Center has deprived me as a
pretrial detainee, by not providing a balanced meals being
house at Criminal Justice Center.” (Docket No. 1 at 5).
He seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.
complaint is subject to dismissal because it is legally
frivolous. Plaintiff names the St. Louis City Justice Center
as the sole defendant. However, jails and local government
detention centers are not suable entities. Ketchum v.
City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir.
1992) (departments or subdivisions of local government are
“not juridical entities suable as such”); see
also Ballard v. Missouri, Case No. 4:13-cv-528-JAR (E.D.
Mo. Apr. 22, 2013) (holding that “[p]laintiff's
claims against the City of St. Louis Department of Public
Safety, the St. Louis County Justice Center, the St. Louis
City Justice Center, and MSI/Workhouse are legally frivolous
because these defendants are not suable entities”);
Wallace v. St. Louis City Justice Ctr., Case No.
4:12-cv-2291-JAR (E.D. Mo. Jul. 17, 2013) (dismissing claims
against the St. Louis City Justice Center because it is not a
plaintiff had named a proper defendant, the complaint would
be dismissed because it fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Plaintiff merely states, in conclusory
fashion, that defendant has not served a balanced meal. He
alleges no facts regarding why he believes the meals are
unbalanced, nor does he allege that his diet is nutritionally
inadequate or has adversely affected his health. Construed
liberally, plaintiff's allegation is merely the
accusation that the Supreme Court has found deficient.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Even pro se complaints are
required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for
relief as a matter of law, Martin, 623 F.2d at 1286,
and this Court will not “assume facts that are not
alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would
have formed a stronger complaint.” Stone, 364
F.3d at 914-15.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
to proceed in forma ...