United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
RODNEY D. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff,
KEITH MOORE, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Rodney
D. Campbell 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 $8.95. 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)(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 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
$44.74. The Court will therefore assess an initial partial
filing fee of $8.95, 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).
is an inmate at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Lino
Lakes, Minnesota. The allegations in the complaint stem from
events that occurred while plaintiff was being temporarily
held in the Mississippi County Detention Center in
Mississippi County, Missouri. Plaintiff brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking monetary relief
against Sheriff Keith Moore and Jail Administrator Cory
Hutcheson. He sues both defendants in their official and
alleges that, on the morning of May 15, 2017, some of his
fellow inmates approached him and asked him where he was
from. Plaintiff replied that he was from Minnesota. The other
inmates said they did not like people from out of town, and
then assaulted him. Guards rushed in, took plaintiff out of
the area, and led him to a cell in the booking area.
Plaintiff waited in the holding cell “for at least an
hour before [he] got any medical treatment.” (Docket
No. 1 at 5).
states that Moore and Hutcheson should be held “fully
responsible” for their “failure to protect”
him while he was “held in their custody until being
picked up or transported out of their custody.”
does not specifically state whether he was a pretrial
detainee or a convicted prisoner at the time in question.
Assuming he was a pretrial detainee, his claims that
defendants failed to protect him from inmate assault and
provided inadequate medical care are analyzed under the
Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment.
However, because the Fourteenth Amendment affords pretrial
detainees at least as great protection as that given to
convicts under the Eighth Amendment, courts have consistently
applied the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard
to pretrial detainee claims involving prison conditions or
the denial of medical care. Jackson v. Buckman, 756
F.3d 1060, 1065 (8th Cir. 2014), Butler v. ...