Beckett v. U.S. Marshals Serv.
| Decision Date | 05 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. C19-2039-LTS,No. C18-0117-LTS,C18-0117-LTS,C19-2039-LTS |
| Parties | KELSEY LEROY BECKETT, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE and CEDAR RAPIDS POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants. KELSEY LEROY BECKETT and JACOB DAVID SNAY, Plaintiffs, v. FAYETTE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, THYRON MATHEWS, KATRINA UNKNOWN, KRISTA UNKNOWN, JORDAN UNKNOWN, ASHLEE UNKNOWN, CHRIS UNKNOWN, MARY UNKNOWN and REID UNKNOWN, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Before me are two pro se cases filed by plaintiff Kelsey Beckett.1 In the first (C18-0117-LTS, Doc. No. 1-1) Beckett raises claims pursuant to both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that officers used excessive force during his arrest. In the second (C19-2039-LTS, Doc. No. 1-1) Beckett and plaintiff Jacob Snay make four claims: 1) they were not provided adequate nutrition at the Fayette County Correctional Center; 2) defendants were deliberately indifferent because it is too cold to sleep at Fayette County Correctional Center; 3) they were denied access to the courts because the Fayette County Correctional Center does not have adequate legal resources; and 4) Beckett was subject to excessive force when defendants used a taser on him while he was lying on the floor.
In both cases Beckett did not submit the statutory filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (requiring filing fee). In order for a court to authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of the filing fee, a person must submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all the assets the person possesses. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In addition, a prisoner must submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner was or is confined. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
Beckett, who, as noted above, is incarcerated, filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis in both cases. C18-0117-LTS, Doc. No. 1 and C19-2039-LTS, Doc. 1. Beckett failed to provide a copy of his prisoner account statement with his motion in C18-0117- LTS. However, because he filed a complete motion in C19-2039-LTS, Doc. No. 1, I will consider that motion as applicable to both cases. That motion substantially complies with the requirements set out above. Because it is clear that Beckett does not have the assets necessary to pay the filing fee his applications will be granted. However, even though the court deems it appropriate to grant a prisoner-plaintiff in forma pauperis status, that plaintiff is required to pay the full $350.00 filing fee by making payments on an installment basis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); see also In re Tyler, 110 F.3d 528, 529-30 (8th Cir. 1997) (). The full filing fee will be collected even if the court dismisses the case because it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff must pay an initial partial filing fee in the amount of twenty percent of the greater of his average monthly account balance or average monthly deposits for the six months preceding the filing of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Based on the documents that Beckett submitted, it appears he has no money in his prison account, and he has not made any deposits into his prison account. See C19-2039-LTS, Doc. No. 1 at 3. Accordingly, the institution having custody of Beckett is directed to monitor his account, and, at such time that it is possible, provide an initial partial filing fee as calculated by pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) for each of the above captioned cases.
In addition to the initial partial filing fee, plaintiff must "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 statute places the burden on the prisoner's institution to collect the additional monthly payments and forward them to the court. Specifically:
[a]fter payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's account. The agency having custody of the prisoner shall forward payments from the prisoner's account to the clerk of the court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Therefore, after plaintiff pays in full the initial partial filing fees, the remaining installments shall be collected by the institution having custody of the plaintiff. The clerk's office shall send a copy of this order and the notice of collection of filing fees to the appropriate official at the place where plaintiff is an inmate.
Plaintiff Snay did not pay the filing fee in C19-2039-LTS and filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. at Doc. No. 1. However, Snay did not file a prison account statement along with his motion. Accordingly, I will grant Snay thirty days from the date of this order to either pay the $400 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis which complies with the requirements set out above. If Snay fails to either pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days, he will be dismissed from C19-2039-LTS with no further order of the court. The clerk's office is directed to send Snay the standard motion to proceed in forma pauperis form.
A pro se complaint must be liberally construed. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam); Smith v. St. Bernards Reg'l Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 1254, 1255 (8th Cir. 1994); see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). However, the Court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant that is immune from a monetary judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) ().
In reviewing a prisoner or in forma pauperis complaint, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless, they must be weighed in favor of the plaintiff. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). Pro se complaints, however, must allege sufficient facts to support the plaintiff's claim. Stone, 364 F.3d at 914. A claim is "frivolous" if it "lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); accord Cokeley v. Endell, 27 F.3d 331, 332 (8th Cir. 1994). In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), courts generally rely on the standards articulated pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1128-29 (8th Cir. 1996) (applying Rule 12(b)(6) standard to a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), a court may review the complaint and dismiss sua sponte those claims that fail "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level," Id. at 555., or that are premised on meritless legal theories or clearly lack any factual basis, see Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.
Beckett's first case, C18-0117-LTS, is brought, in part, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
As a general rule, Bivens claims and § 1983 claims are almost identical and involve the same analysis. See Gordon, 168 F.3d at 1113 ; Duffy v. Wolle, 123 F.3d 1026, 1037 (8th Cir. 1997) ().
Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 789 fn.7 (8th Cir. 2015); see also Wright v. United States, 813 F.3d 689, 695 (8th Cir. 2015) ().
The remainder of the claims in the two cases are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . .
§ 1983 was designed to provide a "broad remedy for violations of federally protected civil rights." Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 685 (1978). However, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides no substantive rights. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994); Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989); Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 617 (1979). "One cannot go into court and claim a 'violation of [42 U.S.C.] § 1983' — for [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 by itself does not protect...
To continue reading
Request your trial