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 Adrian
Darcy Shaw 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 to grant the motion, and assess an
initial partial filing fee of $6.95. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1). In addition, for the reasons discussed
below, the Court will dismiss the complaint, without
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 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 inmate
account statement showing an average monthly balance of
$34.73. The Court will therefore assess an initial partial
filing fee of $6.95, 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.
complaints are to be liberally construed. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). However, they still
must allege sufficient facts to support the claims alleged.
Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir.
2004); see also Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282,
1286 (8th Cir. 1980) (even pro se complaints are required to
allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a
matter of law). Federal courts are not required to
“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. In
addition, giving 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, 113 (1993).
instant complaint is the third civil rights complaint
plaintiff has filed in this Court pro se and in forma
pauperis since 2015, alleging wrongdoing in conjunction with
being charged with and prosecuted for sexually abusing a
child identified as J.B. On October 28, 2015, plaintiff filed
a complaint seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Detective Julie Johnson, Angela Brown, and three
minor children identified by initials A.B., P.B., and
Shaw v. Johnson, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-1639-SNLJ
(E.D. Mo. Jan. 27, 2016) (hereafter “Shaw
I.”). He sought and was granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. Plaintiff's claims were based upon
being allegedly wrongfully accused of sexually abusing J.B.
On January 27, 2016, the Court dismissed the complaint after
determining it was frivolous. Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit. On April 27, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued an
order affirming the district court's judgment.
15, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Amy Fite, an assistant
prosecuting attorney. Shaw v. Fite, Case No.
4:17-cv-1545-SPM (E.D. Mo. Jul. 26, 2017) (hereafter
“Shaw II.”). He sought and was granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff's claims
were based upon being charged with and prosecuted for
sexually abusing J.B. On July 26, 2017, the Court dismissed
the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) after
determining that the complaint was frivolous. Plaintiff filed
a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, but on December 14, 2017, the Court of
Appeals issued an order affirming the district court's
case at bar, plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Amy Fite, Detective Julie Johnson, Ashley
Brown, Percy Brown, Angela Brown and Douglas Torrens. In the
complaint, plaintiff describes Shaw I and Shaw
II in detail, noting that in those cases, he attempted
to sue Johnson, his former girlfriend and her daughter, Amy
Fite, and Douglas Torrens for falsely
accusing/charging/prosecuting him for sexually abusing J.B.
He then writes that he “would like to re-open my
lawsuit if I'm able because I have an appeal in court
right now to vacate, set aside and correct judgment.”
(Docket No. 1 at 5). He states he wants the Court to look
into his case, and reinstate his life. He writes “I
feel dealing with this charge on both cases I deserve