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 pro se
plaintiff Dwayne Robison for leave to commence this action
without prepayment of the required filing fee. Having
reviewed the motion and the financial information submitted
in support, the Court will grant the motion, and assess an
initial partial filing fee of $2.33. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1). Furthermore, after reviewing the
complaint, this case will be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. §
Partial Filing Fee
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.
has submitted an application to proceed in district court
without prepaying fees or costs, and a certified prison
account statement. ECF Nos. 2 & 7. According to this
financial information, plaintiff receives average monthly
deposits of $11.67. The Court finds that plaintiff has
insufficient funds in his prison account to pay the entire
fee and will therefore assess an initial partial filing fee
of $2.33, which is twenty percent of plaintiff's average
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, is 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. 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 pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915, the Court accepts the well-pled facts as true,
White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984),
and liberally construes the complaint. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); 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 plaintiff's 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) (refusing to supply
additional facts or to construct a legal theory for the
pro se plaintiff that assumed facts that had not
is currently an inmate at Eastern Reception Diagnostic and
Correctional Center (“ERDCC”), but the actions
complained of in his complaint occurred while he was
incarcerated at Farmington Correctional Center
(“FCC”). Plaintiff brings this action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights
against medical personnel at FCC for not properly treating
his allegedly underweight and rapid-weight-loss medical
December 2018, plaintiff submitted multiple health service
requests seeking medical attention for low body weight.
“Nurse Frank” was unable to find anything wrong
with plaintiff, so plaintiff was referred to see a doctor.
Dr. Robert Wudel and nurse Dana Jost were also unable to find
anything wrong with plaintiff. As a result, some unnamed
medical tests were performed. It is unclear what the results
of these tests were, but the FCC grievance responses filed by
plaintiff concerning this matter indicate that
plaintiff's Body Mass. Index (BMI) was found to be within
the normal range as of both February 25, 2019, and April 1,
2019. ECF No. 1-1 at 1, 3.
to plaintiff, his body weight is not normal. He has never
weighed this little in his life and it must be an indicator
of organ damage or some serious problem. Plaintiff also
states that his bones are showing through his skin. Plaintiff
claims his weight on April 25, 2019, was 148 pounds and that
this amount is not normal. ECF No. 1 at 4. However, the FCC
medical staff have repeatedly informed plaintiff that his
weight is within the normal range and there is nothing that
they can do for him. Plaintiff also complains of stomach pain
but admits that he is taking “a bunch” of
medication for this problem. ECF No. 1 at 3-5.
unclear who plaintiff intends to name as defendants in his
complaint. In the caption of the complaint, plaintiff lists
three defendants: (1) Lisa Ivy (Health Service
Administrator); (2) Robert Wudel (Medical Director); and (3)
Dana Jost (Nurse Practitioner). Plaintiff does not state in
what capacity he brings claims against these defendants. ECF
No. 1 at 1. However, in the “Defendants” section
of the complaint, plaintiff lists as defendants: (1)
“T. Bredeman / Robert Wudel” (Director of
Regional Medical Association) and (2) “J. Cofield /
Broad of Nursing” (Operations Director). Defendant
names these defendants in their official capacities only.
Id. at 2-3. The Court will liberally construe the
complaint to be naming all five defendants.
relief, plaintiff seeks money damages of $780 and