Porter v. Corr. Case Manager
| Decision Date | 25 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:20-cv-01034-SRC,4:20-cv-01034-SRC |
| Parties | MIKEL R. PORTER, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONAL CASE MANAGER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Mikel R. Porter 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 $1.50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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 submitted a copy of his certified inmate account statement. (Docket No. 6). The account statement shows an average monthly deposit of $7.50. The Court will therefore assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.50, 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 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 § 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 theplaintiff'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 Potosi Correctional Center in Mineral Point, Missouri. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming Unknown Correctional Case Manager and Correctional Case Manager Leslie Labon as defendants. (Docket No. 1 at 2-3). Defendants are sued in both their individual and official capacities. The complaint is handwritten on a Court-provided form, and includes a number of exhibits, such as informal resolution requests (IRR), IRR responses, offender grievances, and grievance responses. The Court has reviewed these exhibits as part of the pleading.1
Plaintiff's "Statement of Claim" is somewhat confusing, as he is relating incidents that occurred at different times and in different correctional institutions. Nonetheless, he begins by alleging that while at the Southeast Correctional Center, various unnamed functional unit managers, correctional case managers, wardens, and the investigator all "deliberately lied about [his] sexual assault" by inmate Dewayne Shelton. (Docket No. 1 at 3). During this incident,plaintiff states that he was cut in the face with a "knifelike weapon." Plaintiff further states that he "discovered a horsefly inside [his] food during lunch and dinner because" he had filed IRRs and grievances about his sexual assault.
On April 3, 2018, plaintiff states that he arrived at the Northeast Correctional Center. (Docket No. 1 at 4). After getting out of "the hole," he reported that he was "having negative vibes from the gangs that surround [him] daily." Plaintiff contends that "staff ignored [his] complaint." On December 7, 2018, plaintiff asserts that he entered protective custody, and that at some point, his "commissary clothes" were "deliberately thrown away" by a correctional officer. He further claims that he received horseflies "inside [his] state tray" on "innumerable" occasions.
On March 10, 2020, plaintiff arrived at the Potosi Correctional Center. He states that staff put him in a cell with a "sexual predator" who sexually assaulted him and "beat [him] with the palm of his hand," while also dragging him on the ground by his hair. Plaintiff pressed the panic button "countless times." When a correctional officer came to give the inmate a conduct violation, plaintiff states that he sought to report his sexual assault and a theft, and to be placed in protective custody. However, the correctional officer refused to pull him out of the cell. As noted in plaintiff's exhibits, the purported sexual assault could not be substantiated. (Docket No. 1-1 at 2).
Plaintiff is seeking to "persecute and sue for all [his] pain and suffering and injustice" with regard to his assault, sexual assault, property theft, and wrongful classification. (Docket No. 1 at 5).
Subsequent to the filing of his initial complaint, plaintiff submitted fourteen additional supplements. First, on September 14, 2020, plaintiff filed a document complaining that correctional staff were "wicked, insolent, [and] deceitful." (Docket No. 5 at 1). He states that an individual named Price returned his mail to him because it did not have enough stamps, whileOfficer Petry did not turn in his legal mail to the United States Courts. He further accuses "staff" of "continually messing with [his] state food," giving him "false conduct violations," and "messing with [his] commissary." Plaintiff also asserts that Joshua Browers, J. Jones, and unknown correctional case managers refused to give him IRR forms. (Docket No. 5 at 2). With regard to his purported sexual assault while at Potosi, plaintiff notes that his Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) allegation was investigated and determined to be unfounded. Plaintiff asserts that he was wrongfully prevented from filing an IRR on the PREA investigator by an unknown correctional case manager.
On September 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a second supplement, in which he alleges that he was getting skipped on meals and showers, and that Browers, Jones, and an unknown correctional case manager were ignoring his IRRs. (Docket No. 7 at 1). He lists twenty-nine separate correctional staff members who he deems "wicked, ungodly, insolent, deceitful" and false. (Docket No. 7 at 2). Plaintiff also alleges that on September 13 and September 15, 2020, administrative segregation "worker" James Lewis tampered with his coffee, and that on September 18, 2020, staff went through his cell while he was in the shower, messing it up and tearing his "Christianity poster." (Docket No. 7 at 3, 8). Another administrative segregation worker allegedly made "sexual comments" and threats. (Docket No. 7 at 3). Plaintiff also objects to staff slamming the food port door. With regard to defendant Labon, plaintiff alleges that Labon gave him three false conduct violations, and refused to give him IRRs. (Docket No. 7 at 5).
The second supplement also includes the allegation of sexual assault at the Potosi Correctional Center that plaintiff first mentioned in his complaint. More specifically, plaintiff states that he was placed "in a cell with a predator," and that on March 13, 2020, his cellmate touched and grabbed him on the buttocks, hit him with the palm of his hand, and dragged himaround the cell. (Docket No. 7 at 5-6). Plaintiff hit "the panic button a thousand times" but claims no help came. (Docket No. 7 at 6). However, he also states that a young white correctional officer came to give plaintiff's cellmate a conduct...
To continue reading
Request your trial