United States District Court, E.D. Missouri
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on plaintiff Neal Houston's
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket No.
8/filed November 20, 2017). 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 $3.25. 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. §
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.
has submitted a certified inmate account statement for the
six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the
complaint, showing an average monthly deposit of $16.25, and
an average monthly balance of $7.37. The Court will therefore
assess an initial partial filing fee of $3.25, which is
twenty percent of plaintiff s average monthly deposit.
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
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).
Plaintiff is an inmate at the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic
and Correctional Center. He brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Corizon Health, Inc., Dr. William
McKinney, Diane Larkins (Health Services Administrator
employed by Corizon), and nurses Kate Tyler and Todd Renshaw.
avers that he was placed in the Enhanced Care Unit
("ECU") because he needed daily living assistance
after having leg surgery. He describes the ECU as a unit for
disabled offenders and others who have difficulty performing
activities of daily life.
alleges that defendant Dr. McKinney failed to inform him that
he was borderline diabetic, and that he had to learn this
news from a psychiatrist. He also alleges that Dr. McKinney
told him he had to buy his own ointment to treat dry skin
that resulted from the surgery. He alleges that defendants
Renshaw and Tyler ordered him transferred from the ECU after
he complained about nursing practices, and that as a result,
he has no "wheelchair pusher." (Docket No. 1 at 8).
alleges that he has not been permitted a follow-up visit with
the doctor who performed his leg surgery, has not been sent
to see a specialist, and was not given an ultrasound per his
request. He also claims that the medical treatment he has
been provided is inconsistent with his treating
physician's recommendations or treatment plan. He states
he is being given blood thinners as a means to frustrate his
treating physician's recommendations. He claims that
Corizon "maintains a policy, practice or custom of
deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of
inmates by denying or delaying medical treatment and referral
to appropriate Specialists." Id. at 7.
Plaintiff also claims that members of the medical staff have