Jackson v. Briesacher, 4:17-cv-776-CDP

• Decision Date: 10 April 2017
• Docket Number: No. 4:17-cv-776-CDP,4:17-cv-776-CDP
• Parties: MALCOLM JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. MATT BRIESACHER, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

MALCOLM JACKSON, Plaintiff,
v.
MATT BRIESACHER, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:17-cv-776-CDP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

April 10, 2017

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Malcolm Jackson, an inmate at the Farmington Correctional Center, for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. (Docket No. 6/filed April 3, 2017).¹ The motion will be granted. In addition, for the reasons explained below, this case will be dismissed.

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 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

Page 2

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 the instant motion, plaintiff submitted a certified inmate account statement showing an average monthly balance of $103.44. The Court therefore assesses an initial partial filing fee of $20.69, twenty percent of petitioner's average monthly balance.

Legal Standard on Initial Review

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 for relief under § 1983, a complaint must plead more than "legal conclusions" and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a "mere possibility of misconduct." Id. at 679. "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, inter alia, draw upon judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679.

A Court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, and accept as true the factual allegations therein. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 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) (federal courts are not required to "assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint"). The rule that a court must accept a complaint's allegations as true is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Iqbal,

Page 3

556 U.S. at 678. 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. U.S., 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

The Complaint

Plaintiff initiated this action on February 21, 2017, using a form entitled "Verified Criminal Complaint and Affidavit of Facts." (Docket No. 1). Named as defendants are Matt Briesacher, General Counsel...