Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robinson v. State

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

January 29, 2018

HOSEA LEE ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          RONNIE L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Hosea Lee Robinson 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 $1.00. In addition, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss the complaint.

         28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)

         Pursuant 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.

         Liberally construing the instant motion, plaintiff states he has requested a copy of his account statement, but it has not been given to him. The Court will therefore assess a nominal initial partial filing fee of $1.00. See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484 (8th Cir. 1997) (when a prisoner is unable to provide the Court with a certified copy of his prison account statement, the Court should assess an amount "that is reasonable, based on whatever information the court has about the prisoner's finances."). If plaintiff wishes to claim that he is unable to pay $1.00, he must submit a copy of his prison account statement in support of such claim.

         Legal Standard on Initial Review

         Under 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 may 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.

         Pro se 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).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff is an inmate at the St. Louis City Justice Center. He states that he brings this action pursuant to the "ADA" (the Americans With Disabilities Act) and the "ADAAA" (the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act). (Docket No. 1 at 1). He also states he is suing for violation of his rights under the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He has named the State of Missouri as the sole defendant.

         Plaintiff alleges that, on February 7, 2016, the defendant ordered him held on a $100, 000 cash-only bond, and that "this order discriminated against plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment of Due Process based on plaintiffs physical disability of coronary heart disease and congestive heart failure." Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff also claims that defendant "discriminated" his right to a fair hearing, and he states he "alleges 8th Amendment violation of excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishment." Id. at 2. Next, plaintiff states that he "alleges violation of (ADA), (ADAAA)." Id. He cites his "speedy trial deadline" and states he filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charges pending against him, and he states he was not allowed to submit evidence of physical injuries. Id. at 3. Plaintiff also writes "deliberate indifference, " and states that evidence he submitted in another lawsuit shows that his disabilities worsened while he was in state custody. He contends that the defendant "discriminated against [his] access to courts. Based on worsening physical disabilities of physical injuries." (Docket No. 1 at 5). Plaintiff includes numerous case citations, but does not explain how they pertain to his case. As relief, he asks the Court to dismiss the indictment and all criminal charges against him "with prejudice for the state's violation of [his] constitutional rights to fair trial." Id.

         Discussion

         The Court will first consider plaintiffs ADA and ADAAA claims. Title II of the ADA provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." Bahl v. County of Ramsey, 695 F.3d 778, 783 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12132). In order to state a claim under Title II of the ADA or the ADAAA, plaintiff must allege that (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that he was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity or was otherwise subjected to discrimination by a public entity; and (3) that such exclusion, denial of benefits, or other discrimination was by reason of his disability. Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465, 484 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing Layton v. Elder, 143 F.3d 469, 472 (8th Cir. 1998)).

         Plaintiff alleges that he is disabled. However, he does not allege that he was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity, nor does he allege that he suffered exclusion, denial of benefits, or other discrimination by reason ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.