United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff
Leslie Allen Achter for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. The motion will be granted. In addition, the
Court will dismiss the complaint, without prejudice.
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, 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.
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).
is an inmate at the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and
Correctional Center, where he is serving an eight-year term
of incarceration. The complaint is titled “A
Memorandum For Federal Full Jurisdiction ‘cite'
herein State and Federal Laws is in Violation I -
‘cite' I Appeal ‘cite' herein.”
(Docket No. 1 at 1). Plaintiff names as defendants the
“Chief Justice of this Honorable Court, ” and
United States District Judges Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. and
Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr. Plaintiff does not state the basis
for this Court's jurisdiction.
complaint is essentially a long, jumbled sentence that is
difficult to read and to understand. For example, plaintiff
Comes now re: Leslie Allen Achter #24045 Petitioner and moves
this Honorable United States District Court Clerk to make and
enter its orders “cite” herein under the
‘50' States and District of Columbia -
“cite” - Timothy Strickland Assistant Bureau
Chief “cite” herein Bureau of Interstates Compact
Laws and Statutes of Transfers and United States of Americans
Constitutional Rights and President Donald Jessie Trump and
“cite” in Congress of Clause and Due Process of
Clause to All United States Bill of Rights and Constitutions
“cite” All Plaintiffs and Petitioner and person
or persons and “cite” human beings in jury trials
or in any opening of “cite” any courts or opening
hearing any and all Chief Justice Judges or A Judges or
crimes or criminal “cite” in court appointed
public defender crimes or criminal Justice [illegible] or
attorney at law that under “cite” his or her oath
by justice “cite” beyond a reasonable doubt and
don't go for that laws and statutes state and federal and
United States of America Constitutions and Bill of Rights is
in all of violations of their Bar licenses therefore this to
make and enter its orders under the First and 5th and 6th and
8th and 14th Amendments and all of the way to 33- Amendments
of 50 States and “cite” District of Columbia for
federal full jurisdictions to filed and amended to over rule
Justice Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. time limited
memorandum on August 14, 2017 Limbaugh Jr. knowing is not
about prisoner civil rights complaint it is about
“cite” him and circuit court judge Sandy Martine
and the attorney at law George Weber Gilmore Jr. 220
(Docket No. 1 at 1-2).
complaint also makes vague references to good time credits
and plaintiff's desire to be released before the
completion of his sentence, and it contains some profanity.
After filing the complaint, plaintiff filed a letter to the
Clerk of Court, an affidavit in support of the complaint, and
a supplement to the complaint. All of these documents are
composed in the same incomprehensible manner as the
complaint, and are sometimes illegible.
initial matter, the Court notes that, to the extent plaintiff
can be understood to claim that the named defendants are
liable to him because they took certain judicial action, the
complaint is subject to dismissal. Judges are “entitled
to absolute immunity for all judicial actions that are not
‘taken in complete absence of all
jurisdiction.'” Penn v. United States, 335
F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Mireles v.
Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)). In this case, all of
the named defendants are United States District Judges in the
Eastern District of Missouri, and act pursuant to that
Court's jurisdiction granted to it by the United States
Constitution. See U.S. Const. art. III.
Court now turns to the content of the complaint. Plaintiff
makes repeated vague references to good time credits, and to
being released before the expiration of his sentence.
Plaintiff's statements are far too vague to state any
valid claim. However, to the extent he can be understood to
claim that his constitutional rights are being violated
because he is being denied good time credits and/or early
release from prison, the complaint is subject to dismissal.
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to be given
good time credits, or to be released before the expiration of
his sentence. See Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal
and CorrectionalComplex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979)
(“There is no constitutional or inherent right of a
convicted person to be conditionally released before the
expiration of a valid sentence”); Dace v.
Mickelson,816 F.2d 1277, 1280-81 (8th Cir. 1987). To
the extent plaintiff can be understood to raise such a claim
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court notes that he must
first exhaust his state court remedies, Jones v.
Smith, 835 F.2d 175 (8th Cir. 1987), and nothing in the