Blair v. Hughes
| Docket Number | 4:23-cv-00286-MTS |
| Decision Date | 29 June 2023 |
| Parties | DIAMOND-DONNELL D. BLAIR, Plaintiff, v. ALLEN HUGHES, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Diamond-Donnell D. Blair for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. (Docket No. 2). 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 $8.37. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
Additionally for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss the official capacity claims against defendants Allen Hughes Michael Miller, Brian Boyer, Unknown Acting Warden, Unknown Chief Administrator, Sarah Miller, E. Henson, and the Unknown Censorship Committee Members. The Court will also dismiss the First Amendment claims against defendants Michael Miller Boyer, Unknown Acting Warden, Unknown Chief Administrator, and Sarah Miller in their individual capacities, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment claims against all defendants in their individual capacities. However, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to issue process on defendant Jason Lewis in both his official and individual capacities as to plaintiff's claims under the First Amendment, and on defendants Hughes, Henson, and the Unknown Censorship Committee members in their individual capacities as to plaintiff's claims under the First Amendment.
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.
In support of his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff has submitted a copy of his inmate account statement. (Docket No. 4). The account statement shows an average monthly deposit of $41.84. The Court will therefore assess an initial partial filing fee of $8.37, which is 20 percent of plaintiff's average monthly deposit.
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 avoid dismissal, 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 Crossroads Correctional Center in Cameron, Missouri. At the time relevant to the complaint, however, he was an inmate at the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center (ERDCC) in Bonne Terre. Plaintiff brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming twelve separate defendants: (1) Deputy Warden Allen Hughes; (2) CCM II Michael Miller; (3) Deputy Division Director Jason Lewis; (4) Functional Unit Manager Brian Boyer; (5) Unknown Acting Warden; (6) Unknown Chief Administrative Officer; (7) Sarah Miller; (8) Unknown Henson; (9) #1 Unknown Censorship Committee Member; (10) #2 Unknown Censorship Committee Member; (11) #3 Unknown Censorship Committee Member; and (12) #4 All Unknown Censorship Committee Members of Novel Perfect. (Docket No. 1 at 2-7). All defendants are sued in both their official and individual capacities. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when he was not allowed to obtain a copy of a self-published novel that he had written.
In the first section of his “Statement of Claim,” plaintiff begins by asserting that he is an African-American incarcerated in the Missouri Department of Corrections, where he is serving a sentence of life plus fifty years. (Docket No. 1 at 8). In May 2022, he completed a novel titled Perfect, which he self-published on Amazon. Plaintiff states that he “does not benefit financially from the sales of the novel, and has not signed a contract to benefit.”
In June 2022, plaintiff asserts that his fiance “ordered a copy of the novel Perfect for [him] to read and possess.” The novel, which plaintiff explains is part of the “urban genre,” was delivered to the ERDCC by Amazon. However, plaintiff never received the novel “through the prison's mailing/mail delivery procedures.” (Docket No. 1 at 9).
According to plaintiff, Mailroom Clerk Henson flagged the novel after realizing that plaintiff was the author. Henson notified then-Warden David Vandergriff, informing Vandergriff of the circumstances. As a result, the novel was withheld from plaintiff for thirty to forty days, and he was “threatened” by being advised that he had to either pay to mail it back, or sign a consent form that authorized his visitor to pick it up. Plaintiff was further told that if he did neither, staff would dispose of the book. Eventually, he consented to have his fiance pick the novel up during a visit.
Plaintiff states that he does not think or express himself in a similar manner to “white, Asian, or other authors of different ethnic and racial backgrounds.” He claims that because of his race, his “freedom of expression is being interfered with by the listed defendants,” and that he is being restricted to reading material “written by predominantly white authors.” Plaintiff asserts that defendants have “contrived and schemed to interfere with his rights to write ” due to his race and incarcerated status, and that he fears punishment for further attempts to write .
In the second section of his “Statement of Claim,” plaintiff accuses defendants Michael Miller, Henson, Boyer, Hughes, Unknown Acting Warden, Unknown Chief Administrative Officer, and the Unknown Censorship Committee Members of violating his right to free expression by deliberately exaggerating and fabricating falsehoods regarding his novel. (Docket No. 1 at 10). He asserts that the Missouri Department of Corrections has a censorship policy governing both ingoing and outgoing mail. This policy is supposed to guide the actions of correctional staff, and describes “why mail may be censored.” In particular, plaintiff states “that mail may be censored if it depicts, describes or encourages activities which may lead to criminal violence or group disruption,” or if it “contains nude pictures or sexually explicit content.” Plaintiff alleges that defendants “did not comply with the censorship policy of MODOC,” and “created falsehoods to deliberately censor and ban [his] novel Perfect.”
With regard to defendant Henson, plaintiff contends that Henson is the clerk of the ERDCC's mailroom. He notes that prison mail procedures require that all offender mail “be processed through the institution mailroom.” (Docket No. 1 at 11). However, policy also provides “that mailroom staff shall not make censorship decisions.”
When plaintiff had not received his book...
To continue reading
Request your trial