United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Paul
Wayne Krauss, an inmate at the Mississippi County Detention
Center, for leave to commence this 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 $13.16. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1). In addition, for the reasons discussed below, the
Court will dismiss the complaint, without prejudice.
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 deposit of
$37.73, and an average monthly balance of $65.83. The Court
will therefore assess an initial partial filing fee of
$13.16, which is twenty percent of plaintiff s average
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).
is a pretrial detainee at the Mississippi County Detention
Center. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against Officer Jay Holcomb, and the Mississippi County
Detention Center. He states he sues Holcomb in an official
and individual capacity.
to the complaint, plaintiff was arrested in October of 2017
and detained in the Mississippi County Detention Center. His
personal property was taken and sealed into a bag, and placed
in the property room. Plaintiff learned that a search warrant
had been executed at his home. Plaintiff does not describe
what, if anything, was recovered during the search.
alleges that the search warrant was invalid because there was
"no court seal on it to make it a legal document of the
Court, " and that because he was in custody when the
warrant was executed, the search should have been conducted
in front of him. (Docket No. 1, Attch. 2, p. 1). Next,
plaintiff alleges that "after Officer Jay Holcomb
finished searching my home" he came to the Detention
Center and, along with a guard, took plaintiffs cell phone
from the property room. Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges
that he had difficulty filing a complaint at the Detention
Center over the loss of the phone. Plaintiff does not allege
that Holcomb accessed or recovered anything from the cell
next alleges that Holcomb called the Detention Center and
"had Mr. Edward Lee come to my pod and threaten me over
my phone which is entirely unethical and completely
unprofessional." Id. Plaintiff also states that
the search warrant was obtained on hearsay, he was charged
with a Class D felony of possession of a controlled substance
even though drugs were not covered by the search warrant, he
was served with an arrest warrant that was invalid because it
lacked a court seal, and his bond was excessive.
relief, plaintiff asks that "full charges be
pursued." (Docket No. 1 at 6). He also seeks $89.99 to
compensate him for the loss of his cell phone, $52, 000 in