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 pro se
plaintiff Patrick Jerome Steward for leave to commence this
action without prepayment of the required filing fee. Having
reviewed the motion, the Court has determined that plaintiff
lacks sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee, and will
assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Furthermore, after reviewing the
complaint, this case will be dismissed without prejudice for
failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
and for alleging legally frivolous claims. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
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 filed two motions to proceed in forma pauperis -
one on a court-provided form and one hand-written.
See ECF Nos. 3 & 6. Both motions state that
plaintiff is a poor person unable to pay the filing fee and
that he is not employed. Plaintiff does occasionally receive
money from a friend, but he states that he currently has no
funds in his prison account. ECF No. 6 at 2. On June 14,
2019, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Subpoena Account,
” seeking the Court's assistance in getting an
inmate account statement from the Warren County Jail where he
was incarcerated. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff notes that the Jail
provided an account statement for a different case that
plaintiff currently has pending before this Court. See
Steward v. Gregory, No. 4:18-CV-1768-JAR (E.D. Mo. Oct.
15, 2018). Based 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
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
who is currently an inmate at Fulton Correctional Center but
was being held at the Warren County Jail at the time of the
allegations, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff names two defendants in both their individual and
official capacities: (1) Warren County prosecuting attorney
Kelly King and (2) Warren County, Missouri.
Plaintiff states his claims against the defendants in a few
Held in the Warren County Jail against my will. Kelly King
employed by Warren County has me false imprisoned, malicious
prosecution, extreme bond for misdemeanor charges. Double
Warren County Jail failed to protect me from being assaulted
by another inmate. In conspiracy with Kelly King to keep me
kidnapped against my will.
5th, 6th, 8th, 14th Amendment violations. Being deprived of
life, liberty, and property.
ECF No. 7 at 3.
relief, plaintiff seeks $1500 per day that he has been
falsely imprisoned and has had his civil rights violated, and
$250, 000 in punitive damages. According to plaintiff, he has
suffered from chest pains, high blood pressure, numbness in
his face as a result of assault, mental anguish, shortness of
breath, and “dreams of [his] demise while in the County
Jail.” ECF No. 7 at 4. Plaintiff also ...