Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Beasley v. State

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

September 3, 2019

GORDON BEASLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          JOHN A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court upon review of a complaint filed by plaintiff Gordon Beasley, an inmate at the Boonville Correctional Center. For the reasons explained below, the Court will allow plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis in these proceedings, and will assess an initial partial filing fee of $ 1.27. Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss the complaint, without prejudice.

         28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)

         Pursuant 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.

         This case originated in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, where plaintiff filed the instant complaint on or about May 30, 2019. On June 5, 2019, the Honorable Brian C. Wimes entered an order transferring the case to this Court on the basis of venue. Judge Wimes also granted plaintiff provisional leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

         This Court has reviewed the Financial Affidavit that plaintiff filed, and has determined to allow plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis in these proceedings. The Court has also reviewed plaintiffs certified inmate account statement, which shows an average monthly deposit of $6.35 and an average monthly balance of $6.00. The Court will therefore assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.27, which is twenty percent of plaintiff s average monthly deposit.

         Legal Standard on Initial Review

         Under 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 may be granted. An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

         "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." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw upon judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679. The court must assume the veracity of well-pleaded facts, but need not accept as true "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

         This Court must liberally construe complaints filed by laypeople. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). This means that "if the essence of an allegation is discernible," the court should "construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson's claim to be considered within the proper legal framework." Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004)). However, even pro se complaints must 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). Federal courts are not required to assume facts that are not alleged, Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15, nor are they required to interpret procedural rules so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Missouri, "Monolitic et al.," the Missouri State Trooper's Association, the Crawford County Sheriffs Department, and the Crawford County Prosecutor's Office. He claims he was wrongfully charged with driving while intoxicated in December of 2017. He cites the Missouri state criminal case State v. Gordon L. Beasley, No. 18CF-CR00085 (42nd Jud. Cir. 2019). There, plaintiff was charged in the Circuit Court of Crawford County with the class B misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated ("DWI") and 9 other traffic-related offenses, but the prosecuting attorney later dismissed the DWI charge. Plaintiff alleges this was because the prosecuting attorney realized that the toxicology report was negative. Plaintiff pled guilty to the remaining 9 charges, and was fined.

         Plaintiff alleges that because the Missouri State Trooper's Association, Crawford County Sheriffs Department and Crawford County Prosecutor's Office acted in bad faith and rushed to judgment, he was charged with DWI without supporting evidence. He writes: "falsifying a probable cause under oath by state trooper who in return turned over probable cause statement without investigating the offense prior to giving the toxicology report to the" prosecutor, and that a state trooper "falsified fictitiously and with fraudulent means filed a false report" and plaintiff was wrongfully charged with DWI without supporting evidence. Plaintiff repeatedly alleges he should ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.