United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
HOSEA L. ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. COLLINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Hosea
L. Robinson, a prisoner and frequent filer of lawsuits, for
leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the
required filing fee. Having reviewed the filing, the Court
will grant plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and assess an initial partial filing fee of
$1.00 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
However, the complaint is defective because, among other
things, it was not drafted on the Court's form.
See E.D. Mo. Local Rule 2.06(A). The Court will give
plaintiff the opportunity to submit an amended complaint;
but, plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel will
be denied at this time.
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 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.
on the financial information plaintiff has submitted, the
Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.00.
See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484 (8th Cir.
1997) (when a prisoner is unable to provide the Court with a
certified copy of his prison account statement, the Court
should assess an amount “that is reasonable, based on
whatever information the court has about the prisoner's
Standard on Initial Review
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), 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
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.
Id. at 679.
reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. Furthermore, the
Court liberally construes the allegations.
complaint titled “Suit for the Injunctive Relief of
Court Ordered Federal Habeas Corpus, ” alleges
violations of his rights under the “ADA” (the
Americans with Disabilities Act) and the “ADAAA”
(the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act). He
names as defendants the “State of Missouri, Department
of Corrections; et al.” He also seeks relief under the
Eighth Amendment, alleging that he has been shown
“callous and deliberate indifference” in regards
to his chronic disabilities, which has placed his “life
and health in imminent danger.” Plaintiff claims he has
been denied access to medical equipment and medications for
his chronic heart disease and his sever gum disease. He also
alleges that correctional officers at Southeast Correctional
Center, where he is currently incarcerated, have caused him
physical injury by repeatedly forcing him to be exposed to
metal detectors. He does not state the relief he seeks, only
requests that the Court allow him to state damages “at
a later date.” ECF No. 1.
allegations are conclusory and fail to explain how any
particular individual was personally responsible for
violating his rights, thereby making it difficult for the
Court to review his assertions under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
However, plaintiff's complaint is also defective because
it is not filed on a court form. Because plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, the Court will allow him to file
an amended complaint on the Court's form.
Court notes that many of the claims raised in plaintiff's
complaint appear to be the same claims raised in
previously-filed suits before this Court. See Robinson v.
St. Louis City, No. 4:18-cv-1853-HEA (filed Oct. 24,
2018; still pending); Robinson v. State of Mo., No.
4:18-cv-1225-JAR (dismissed Oct. 24, 2018; appeal dismissed
Jan. 31, 2019); Robinson v. State of Mo., No.
4:18-cv-114-RLW (dismissed Jan. 29, 2018); Robinson v.
Payne; No. 4:18-cv-1224-CDP (dismissed Oct. 29, 2018);
Robinson v. Glass; No. 4:17-cv-1628-PLC (dismissed
Sept. 28, 2017; appeal dismissed Jan. 19, 2018). In fact, the
“evidence” attached to plaintiff's complaint
is marked as exhibits from a different suit. See ECF
No. 1-1. The plaintiff is warned that he may not proceed
in forma pauperis more than once on the same claims.
Cooper v. Delo, 997 F.2d 376, 377 (8th Cir. 1993)
(§ 1915(e) dismissal has res judicata effect on future
IFP petitions). Also, the Court may dismiss a duplicative
complaint that raises issues that are directly related to
issues in another pending action brought by the same party.
Aziz v. Burrows, 976 F.2d 1158 (8th Cir. 1992).
Plaintiff's amended complaint should be clear on how the
claims raised in this matter differ from claims already
considered by the Court, and from claims pending in other
suits before the Court.
has twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order to file
an amended complaint in accordance with the specific
instructions set forth here. All claims in the action must be
included in one, ...