Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Husain v. State

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

January 25, 2019

DAWUD AMEEN HUSAIN, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on two separate motions of plaintiff Dawud Ameen Husain for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. Having reviewed the motions and the financial information submitted in support, the Court will grant the motions to the extent plaintiff seeks leave to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee. To the extent the motions seek any other form of relief, they will be denied. In addition, the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $17.60, and will dismiss this case without prejudice because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B).

         28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)

         Pursuant 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 or her 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, until the filing fee is fully paid. Id.

         Plaintiff has submitted an inmate account activity statement from the St. Louis County Justice Center. The statement is for a time period of less than one month, and shows an initial intake credit of $88.00. The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $17.60, which is twenty percent of plaintiff s average deposit. If plaintiff is unable to pay the initial partial filing fee, he must submit a copy of his current prison account statement in support of his claim.

         Legal Standard on Initial Review

         Pursuant 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, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a "mere possibility of misconduct." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). "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 draw upon judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679. The court must "accept as true the facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." Barton v. Tabor, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir. 2016).

         When reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give it the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A "liberal construction" means that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, the district court should construe the plaintiffs complaint in a way that permits his or her claim to be considered within the proper legal framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). However, even pro se complaints are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980). See also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating that federal courts are not required to "assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint").

         The Complaint

          Plaintiff is an inmate at the St. Louis County Justice Center, and is a frequent pro se and in forma pauperis litigator in this Court.[1] Plaintiff states that on December 18, 2015, he was "pretextually stopped [in his vehicle] while traveling peaceably in his private capacity by Peace Officer John Laumier and two assistants to be named, who all were given two notices, warning them not to trespass against my rights."[2] He claims the officers caused the "invasion of the right to privacy, and the deprivation of his inalienable rights, secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, plaintiff has been suffering false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and other persecution from custodial corporation of plaintiff s body." Plaintiff attaches as Exhibits A and B to his amended complaint the "No Trespassing" notices he gave the police. Exhibit A states, in relevant part:

         LEGAL NOTICE NO TRESPASSING

         WARNING

You are hereby advised of the following federal criminal law "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by him by the Constitution or the Laws of the United States, or because of his having to exercised [sic] the same; or if two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with the intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured-They shall be fined not more than $10, 000 or ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.