United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
JULIUS D. PARHAM, Plaintiff,
DARREN CANN, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff
Julius D. Parham for leave to commence this civil action
without prepayment of the required filing fee. (Docket No.
2). Having reviewed the motion, the Court has determined that
plaintiff lacks sufficient funds to pay the filing fee, and
will assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.00.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Additionally, for
the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss
plaintiffs complaint 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 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 the Court each time the
amount in the prisoner's account exceeds $10.00, until
the filing fee is fully paid. Id.
has not submitted an inmate account statement. As a result,
the Court will require plaintiff to pay 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 prisoner's finances"). If plaintiff is unable to
pay the initial partial filing fee, he must submit a copy of
his inmate account statement in support of his claim.
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 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief,
which is more than a "mere possibility of
misconduct." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
679 (2009). "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 upon judicial experience and common sense.
Id. at 679. The court must "accept as true the
facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements." Barton v. Taber,
820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir. 2016).
reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the
Court must give it the benefit of a liberal construction.
Haines v. Kemer, 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 plaintiffs 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 (8thCir.
2004) (stating that federal courts are not required to
"assume facts that are not alleged, just because an
additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger
complaint"). In addition, affording 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. United States, 508
U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
is a pro se litigant currently incarcerated at the
Mississippi County Detention Center in Charleston, Missouri.
He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
complaint names Prosecutor Darren Cann, Assistant Prosecutor
Claire Poley, the Mississippi County Sheriffs Department, and
the Mississippi County Detention Center as defendants.
(Docket No. 1 at 2-3). Defendants Cann and Poley are sued in
both their official and individual capacities.
alleges that he was "falsely accused" and charged
with the Class E felony of criminal nonsupport. (Docket no. 1
at 4). He further states he was "unlawfully
arrested and unlawfully detained in the Mississippi County
Detention Center from" July 24, 2018 until September 14,
2018. Plaintiff asserts that the felony nonsupport charge was
frivolous "based upon the evidence that was presented by
the State and [the] investigation done by the State leading
up to the decision by the State to file said charges."
nonsupport charge against plaintiff was dropped on September
14, 2018, after plaintiff had rejected a plea offer that had
been made to him at his preliminary hearing. Plaintiff states
that the charge was dropped after his attorneys emailed
Prosecutor Poley to advise her that plaintiff had been
"maliciously, frivolously!, ] falsely and unlawfully
charged by the State of Missouri" by "Mississippi
County Prosecuting Attorney Darren Cann."
claims that the actions of the prosecutors violated his civil
rights. (Docket No. 1 at 5). He further asserts that because
Prosecutor Cann and Prosecutor Poley investigated the case
prior to the filing of the charge, they are not entitled to
result of his allegedly unlawful arrest and detention,
plaintiff states that he suffers mental and psychological
disorders, including posttraumatic stress. (Docket No. 1 at
6, 8). He also asserts that his character has been slandered
and defamed, and that he has suffered a back injury and
hemorrhoids from sitting on metal while incarcerated.
seeks $1, 500, 000 in punitive damages and $1, 500, 000 in