United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff, a
pretrial detainee, for leave to commence this action without
payment of the required filing fee. Because plaintiff has a
duplicative action currently pending in this Court, the Court
will not assess a filing fee in this action. Furthermore,
based upon a review of the complaint, the Court finds that
the complaint should be dismissed as duplicative.
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.
action is duplicative of Grady v. Gaddy, No.
4:19-CV-1701 NCC (E.D.Mo.), the Court will not assess a
filing fee in the current action.
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'd 826 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.
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 asserting violations of his civil rights. Plaintiff
names as defendants two Assistant United States Attorneys
(Michael Reilly and Dean Hoag), as well as a DEA Task Force
Officer (James Gaddy). He asserts that his constitutional
rights were violated when fabricated evidence was presented
during grand jury proceedings in this Court, which ultimately
led to an unlawful indictment and his pretrial detention.
See United States v. Grady, No. 4:17-CR-95 RWS
filed the instant action in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois on May 8, 2019. See
Grady v. Gaddy, No. 3:19-CV-486 JPG (S.D.IL). The
Honorable J. Phil. Gilbert transferred the instant action to
this Court on July 15, 2019, finding that this Court was the
more appropriate venue to review plaintiff's action.
June 12, 2019, plaintiff filed an identical action in this
Court against defendants James Gaddy, Michael Reilly and Dean
Hoag. See Grady v. Gaddy, No. 4:19-CV-1701 NCC (E.D.
Mo.). In the prior action currently pending in this Court, he
is suing defendants for the same, or almost the same, causes
of action as the present action. To conserve judicial
resources, the Court will dismiss the present action as
duplicative of the prior case in this District. Plaintiff
will not be assessed a filing fee in this action.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's
motion to proceed in forma ...