United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Keith
Taylor Brooks an inmate at Cape Girardeau County Jail, for
leave to commence this action without payment of the required
filing fee. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds
that plaintiff does not have sufficient funds to pay the
entire filing fee and will assess an initial partial filing
fee of $1.00.See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
Furthermore, based upon a review of the complaint, the Court
finds that the complaint should be dismissed as duplicative.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if “it
lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An
action is malicious when it is undertaken for the purpose of
harassing litigants and not for the purpose of vindicating a
cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F.Supp.
458, 461-63 (E.D. N.C. 1987), aff'd826 F.2d 1059
(4th Cir. 1987).
determine whether an action fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, the Court must engage in a two-step
inquiry. First, the Court must identify the allegations in
the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of
truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950-51
(2009). These include “legal conclusions” and
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action [that are] supported by mere conclusory
statements.” Id. at 1949. Second, the Court
must determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim
for relief. Id. at 1950-51. This is a
“context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Id. at 1950. The plaintiff is required
to plead facts that show more than the “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Id. The Court must
review the factual allegations in the complaint “to
determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to
relief.” Id. at 1951. When faced with
alternative explanations for the alleged misconduct, the
Court may exercise its judgment in determining whether
plaintiff's proffered conclusion is the most plausible or
whether it is more likely that no misconduct occurred.
Id. at 1950, 1951-52.
brings this action to redress violations of his civil rights,
and names Cape Girardeau County as a defendant in this
action. Plaintiff names seven additional individuals as
defendants in this action, including: John Jordan (Sheriff);
Unknown Davis (Lieutenant); James Mulcahy (Captain); Unknown
Surface (Correctional Officer); Unknown Stewart (Correctional
Officer); Unknown Boliva (Correctional Officer); and Unknown
Kato (Correctional Officer).
alleges that he was admitted to the Cape Girardeau County
Jail as an inmate on or about April 6, 2018. He claims that
when he was admitted to the Jail he was given a dirty pair of
pants and a dirty shirt by Correctional Officer
Surface. Plaintiff states that he asked for
“clean” clothes, noting that there was a pile of
clothes behind the Officer that seemed to be available for
use at intake. Plaintiff alleges, however, that Correctional
Officer Surface denied him the use of the “clean”
clothes. Plaintiff further alleges that he was not given any
“hygiene” items at intake. Plaintiff does not
indicate exactly what “hygiene” items he was not
provided by the Jail, nor does he indicate what hygiene items
he was expected to buy from the Commissary.
claims that he has had to wear the dirty clothes for
approximately two months. He claims that he got genital
herpes from the dirty clothes, although he has not indicated
that he saw a doctor at the Jail for such a diagnosis. He
merely states that an unnamed nurse he saw didn't
“look at it” and he was told to “put in a
request form if he did have it.” He additionally states
that his clothes smelled and other inmates laughed at him as
a result of the dirty clothing he was given at intake.
states that he believes his legal mail was opened by the Jail
sometime between June 7, 2018 and June 12, 2018. Plaintiff
asserts that “no officers will answer [his] requests
for names” of who allegedly opened the mail.
claims that grievances he allegedly wrote about incidents at
the Jail have been thrown away. Plaintiff, however, does not
indicate what he wrote the grievances about or who allegedly
threw the grievances away.
alleges that he requested a kosher diet on April 17, 2018. He
asserts that he has been denied kosher meals at the Jail and
as a result he has lost weight. However, he also states that
when he asked why he was being denied kosher meals he was
told that all of the meals at the Jail were kosher and ok for
him to eat.
plaintiff asserts in a conclusory fashion that
“Co's do not keep inmates safe as their policies
suggest.” Plaintiff suggests that the commanding
officers at the Jail are ...