United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
RISHARD L.A. EDWARDS, Plaintiff,
CBM MANAGED SERVICES, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff
Rishard Edwards (registration no. 145280), a pretrial
detainee at St. Louis City Justice 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
$1.00. 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.
plaintiff has failed to submit a prisoner account statement,
the Court will charge an initial partial filing fee of $1.00
at this time. See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481,
484 (8th Cir. 1997).
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 Aenough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.@ Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
a pretrial detainee at the St. Louis City Justice Center,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his civil rights. Named as the sole defendant
in this action is the food service provider at the Justice
Center, CBM Managed Services (a/k/a “Catering by
Marlin's, Inc.” or “CBM”). Plaintiff
brings his claim against defendant in its individual and
claims that CBM has a policy and practice of failing to
provide adequate nutrition to the inmates at the St. Louis
City Justice Center. Specifically, plaintiff claims that CBM
has been depriving the inmates of fruit in their daily meals.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief in
official capacity claims arise under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments as an unconstitutional condition of
confinement claim. Prisoners in the past have raised claims
related to food deprivation and deficiency under these
constitutional rights. See Rust v. Grammer, 858 F.2d
411 (8th Cir. 1988); Phelps v. Kapnolas,
123 F.3d 91 (2d Cir.1997); Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock
County, Texas, 929 F.2d 1078 (5th Cir.1991); Freeman
v. Trudell, 497 F.Supp. 481 (E.D.Mich.1980). Thus, the
Court will issue process on these claims for relief against
defendant in its official capacity.
plaintiff's individual capacity claims against CBM are
subject to dismissal, as plaintiff cannot bring an individual
capacity claim against this quasi-government entity.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's
motion to proceed in forma ...