United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff
(registration no. 1134898), an inmate at Missouri Eastern
Correctional Center (“MCCC”), for leave to
commence this action without payment of the required filing
fee. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the
plaintiff does not have sufficient funds to pay the entire
filing fee and will assess an initial partial filing fee of
$45.32. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
Furthermore, after reviewing the complaint and the
supplemental complaints, the Court will order plaintiff to
submit a second amended complaint on a court-provided form in
compliance with the instructions set forth below.
Plaintiff's failure to do so will result in a dismissal
of this action, without prejudice.
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 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 $10.00, until the
filing fee is fully paid. Id.
has submitted an affidavit and a certified copy of his prison
account statement for the six-month period immediately
preceding the submission of his complaint. A review of
plaintiff's account indicates an average monthly deposit
of $226.58. Accordingly, the Court will assess an initial
partial filing fee of $45.32.
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,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To state a claim for relief under § 1983, 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,
inter alia, draw upon judicial experience and common
sense. Id. at 679.
complaints are to be liberally construed. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). However, they still
must allege sufficient facts to support the claims alleged.
Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir.
2004); see also Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282,
1286 (8th Cir. 1980) (even pro se complaints are required to
allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a
matter of law). Federal courts are not required to
“assume facts that are not alleged, just because an
additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger
complaint.” Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15. In
addition, giving a pro se complaint the benefit of a liberal
construction does not mean that procedural rules in ordinary
civil litigation must be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes
by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v.
U.S., 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
Complaint and Supplemental Complaints
is an inmate at the Missouri Eastern Correctional Center. He
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
the following defendants, named in his complaint: Cindy
Griffith (Deputy Div. Director, Adult Institutions); Anne
Precythe (Director); Shannon Montgomery (Square Cook); Donna
Gillam (Farmington Correctional Center (“FCC”),
Food Service Manager); David Vandergriff; FCC, Deputy
Warden); Teri Lawson (FCC, Warden); Tammy White (FCC, Deputy
Warden); James Cowie (FCC, Correctional Officer); Brittany
Gillam (FCC, Square Cook); Kevin Mathes (FCC, Correctional
Officer); K. Johnson (FCC, Case Manager); William Boyer (FCC,
Asst. Warden); Melanie Hinkle (FCC, Functional Unit Manager);
Brian Pettus (FCC, Correctional Officer); Tracy Lynch (FCC,
Correctional Officer); John Hagardy (FCC, Case Manager); and
Alan Butterworth (FCC, Acting Warden). Plaintiff names these
defendants in their individual and official capacities in the
April 11, 2019, plaintiff submitted a supplemental complaint
adding claims and defendants to his complaint. He named the
following defendants: John/Jane Doe I (MECC, Correctional
Officer); Jane Doe (MECC, Correctional Officer); John/Jane
Doe II (MECC, Correctional Officer); and Jennifer Sachse
(MECC, Warden). Plaintiff again asserted that he was bringing
his action against defendants in their individual and
has submitted an eighty-two-page (82) handwritten complaint,
as well as a seventy-five-page (75) supplemental complaint.
The Court does not accept supplemental pleadings, and
additionally, all complaints and amended pleadings are to be
submitted on a court-provided form. See Popoalii v.
Correctional Medical Services, 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th
Cir.2008) (finding that it is appropriate to deny leave to
amend a complaint when a proposed amendment was not submitted
with the motion); see also, E.D. Mo. Local Rule
plaintiff has included claims relating to two separate
prisons - Farmington Correctional Center (“FCC”)
and Missouri Eastern Correctional Center
(“MECC”), and he has brought more than eight
separate (8) claims against twenty-one (21) defendants.
example, plaintiff generally claims that he has been denied
“access to the Inmate Canteen Fund Records” at
the Missouri Department of Corrections at both MECC and FCC.
However, he does not indicate why he needs such records, or
which defendants he asked for the records or why he was
purportedly denied the records.
goes into great detail regarding his work at FCC as a Level I
Cook, and how he believes there is a hierarchy between
inmates within job assignments. He asserts that some inmates,
or “leadmen, ” have the ability to tell other
inmates what to do within their job assignments. Plaintiff
does not believe inmates should have supervisory authority
over other inmates. Plaintiff asserts generally, that
defendants Shannon Montgomery and Donna Gilliam, (Cook and
Food Service Manager at FCC), acted incorrectly in allowing
some inmates to have supervisory authority as
“leadmen” over other inmates in the kitchen.
Plaintiff states in a conclusory fashion that Deputy Warden
Vandergriff, Warden Teri Lawson, Deputy Director of Adult
Institutions Cindy Griffith, and MDOC Director Anne Precythe
all failed to fix the violations that were occurring at the
FCC kitchen in that “leadmen” were being allowed
to tell other inmates what to do in the kitchen environment.
plaintiff does not state how he was harmed if, in fact,
another inmate did direct his actions in the kitchen in any
way. Plaintiff also does not state how he believes such a
“hierarchy” in the kitchen was a constitutional
violation. Moreover, although he claims that the supervisors
of FCC and MDOC knew about the practice and condoned it, ...