Baalim v. Perkins
| Decision Date | 01 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:21 CV 1341 MTS |
| Parties | MALAK BAALIM, a.k.a. NORBERT K.O. CODY, II, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE LYNNE PERKINS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Malak Baalim, a.k.a. Norbert K.O. Cody, II for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee.[1] Having reviewed the motion and the financial information submitted in support, 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). Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss plaintiff's 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 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 $10.00, until the filing fee is fully paid. Id.
Plaintiff has not submitted an inmate account statement as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Nevertheless, having reviewed the information contained in the motion - including plaintiff's assertion that he has “no income” - 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) (). 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.
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 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). See also Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73 (8th Cir. 2016) ().
When reviewing a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give it the benefit of a liberal construction. 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) (). 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).
Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who is currently incarcerated at the St. Louis City Justice Center in St. Louis, Missouri. He has filed a civil action that has been construed as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint names Judge Lynne Perkins, Judge Katherine Fowler, Judge James E Sullivan, Judge Michael Warren Noble, and Public Defender Brian Horneyer as defendants. Doc. [1 at 1, 6]. Plaintiff does not indicate the capacity in which defendants are sued. The allegations concern the handling of plaintiff's criminal cases in State of Missouri v. Cody, 2022-CR02131 (22nd Jud. Cir., City of St. Louis), and State of Missouri v. Cody, 2022-CR02131-01 (22nd Jud. Cir., City of St. Louis).[2] The defendants consist of four judges and plaintiff's public defender.
With regard to Judge Sullivan, plaintiff states that Sullivan held court on December 28, 2020, at which point plaintiff advised that he was there “in propria persona special guest appearance and that [he] didn't hire the attorney present who entered her limited appearance without [his] permission and signed off on his court order of detention with no bond.” Id. at 1. During the hearing, plaintiff asserts that Judge Sullivan “kept muting the microphone” each time plaintiff tried to “object to the [defamation] of [character]” against him. Id. at 2. He alleges that Judge Sullivan should have released him, because he waived “no rights and signed no contract with the state court.” Instead, Judge Sullivan entered a “not guilty” plea on plaintiff's behalf, even though plaintiff did not authorize it. Plaintiff further states that he challenged the court's jurisdiction, because jurisdiction was never proven. As plaintiff was making his objections, a sheriff's deputy “dragged [him] out [of] the court room.” He alleges that this violated his right to due process. Due to plaintiff's emotional distress, he seeks $10, 000 in damages from Judge Sullivan.
As to Judge Noble, plaintiff states that Noble held court on January 4, 2021. At the hearing, plaintiff advised the court as to his political status, that he was there “in propria persona special guest appearance, ” and that he “didn't hire the attorney who entered his/her limited appearance without [his] permission and signed off on the detention order with no bond.” After hearing this, Judge Noble “insulted” him by stating that he needed a “mental evaluation and drug screening.” Plaintiff attempted to object to the purported defamation of his character, but Judge Noble “kept muting [his] microphone.” As in his earlier hearing, a sheriff's deputy dragged him “out [of] the court room…during [his] objections.” Due to this, plaintiff states that he suffered emotional distress, as well as problems with his family, personal, and business relationships. Doc. [1 at 3]. He is seeking $20, 000 in damages from Judge Noble.
Concerning Judge Perkins, plaintiff states that Perkins held court dates on February 5, 2021, March 17, 2021, April 16, 2021, and May 5, 2021. As with the other judges, plaintiff asserts that Judge Perkins heard him say that he was there “in propria persona special guest appearance at each court date.” Judge Perkins also heard plaintiff say that his “name was Malak Baalim and [his] person was Norbert K.O. Cody II and that the charges [were] a misnomer in [his] late grandfather['s] name.” According to plaintiff, Judge Perkins ignored his motion to set aside the detention and also “refused to dismiss the case with prejudice for failure to state [a] cause of action.” Judge Perkins also muted plaintiff's “microphone several times, ” and the sheriff's deputy dragged him “out of court during [his] objections.”
In addition, plaintiff asserts that Judge Perkins granted continuances over his objections, and ignored his right to a speedy trial. As a result, he states that his character was defamed, he “was disrespected with drug court screenings and mental [evaluation] attempts, ” that he “was held in custody in violation of the El Morocco Peace and Friendship Treaty [of] 1787, ” that he “lost personal, family and business relationships, ” that he was “sprayed in the eye with mace, ” and that he was denied dental care and a vegan diet. Id. at 3-4. Due to this, he seeks $100, 000 in damages from Judge Perkins. Id. at 3.
With respect to Judge Fowler, plaintiff states that Fowler held court on June 2, 2021, August 5, 2021, August 25, 2021, and October 13, 2021. Id. at 4. He asserts that Judge Fowler “was made aware of [his] political status and that [he] was [there] in propria persona special guest appearance.” According to plaintiff, Judge Fowler denied all of his motions, even though she was supposed to dismiss his case. He also accuses her of ignoring Judge Perkins's order stating that plaintiff was competent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial