United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Dustin
Patrick Curtis, an inmate at the St. Charles County
Department of Corrections, for leave to commence this civil
action without prepayment of the required filing fee. Having
reviewed the motion and the financial information therein,
the Court has determined to grant the motion, and assess an
initial partial filing fee of $4.00. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1). Additionally, for the reasons discussed
below, the Court will dismiss the complaint, without
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 will
assess an initial partial filing fee and after payment of
that fee, the prisoner will be required to make monthly
payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income
credited to his 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.
instant motion, plaintiff avers he receives $20 per month.
The Court will therefore assess an initial partial filing fee
of $4.00, which is twenty percent of plaintiff s average
monthly deposit. Any claim that plaintiff is unable to pay
that amount must be supported by a certified copy of
plaintiff s institution account statement.
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 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).
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
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).
of the State of Missouri's online docketing system shows
that plaintiff is a defendant in a criminal case that is
currently pending in the Circuit Court for St. Charles
County. See State v. Dustin Patrick Curtis, No.
1811-CR00257-01 (11th Jud. Cir. 2018). In that case,
plaintiff is facing charges of kidnapping, rape or attempted
rape, domestic assault, and unlawful use of a weapon. The
Honorable Ted House, who is named as a defendant in the
instant matter, is the presiding judge.
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Judge House, the St. Charles County Circuit Court, Sarah
Hunter, Tammy Smiley and Dr. Lisa Mathews. Plaintiff sues the
defendants in their official and individual capacities. His
claims arise under the Sixth Amendment. He alleges as
House ordered plaintiff to undergo a mental health
examination to determine his competency to stand trial.
Plaintiff filed a motion asking that his lawyer be present
during the ...