Watson v. United States

• Decision Date: 09 April 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 4:20-cv-1729-PLC
• Parties: PIERRE WATSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

PIERRE WATSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 4:20-cv-1729-PLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

April 9, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion of pro se plaintiff Pierre Watson, a federal prisoner, for leave to commence this civil action without prepaying fees or costs. Having reviewed the motion and the financial information submitted in support, the Court has determined to grant the motion, and assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. Additionally, for the reasons explained below, the Court will dismiss the complaint pursuant to 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 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 his 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 account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is fully paid. Id.

Plaintiff avers he asked his institution to provide him with a copy of his inmate account statement, but was told it would not be provided. Therefore, the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484 (8th Cir. 1997) (when a prisoner is unable to provide the Court with a certified copy of his prison account statement, the Court should assess an amount "that is reasonable, based on whatever information the court has about the prisoner's finances.").

Legal Standard on Initial Review

This Court is required to review a complaint filed in forma pauperis to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This Court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of it that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff "pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 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 assume the veracity of well-pleaded facts, but need not accept as true "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

This Court must liberally construe complaints filed by laypeople. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). This means that "if the essence of an allegation is discernible," the courtshould "construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson's claim to be considered within the proper legal framework." Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004)). However, even pro se complaints must 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). Federal courts are not required to assume facts that are not alleged, Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15, nor are they required to interpret procedural rules so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

Background

In the instant complaint, plaintiff claims his civil rights were violated during criminal proceedings in the matter of United States v. Watson, No. 4:15-cr-440-AGF (E.D. Mo. 2015). In that case, plaintiff was prosecuted and convicted of offenses related to a counterfeiting scheme, and sentenced to serve a total of 84 months in prison. Assistant United States Attorney Tracy Berry represented the government, and Special Agent Kristine Scowcroft was part of the investigation. Plaintiff's convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. United States v. Watson, No. 17-2558 (8th Cir. 2018). Events in plaintiff's criminal case relevant to these proceedings are provided, infra.

On May 31, 2019, plaintiff filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence to bring multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by his trial attorney, and prosecutorial misconduct by Berry. See Watson v. United States, No. 4:19-cv-1545-AGF (E.D. Mo. 2019). An evidentiary hearing was held on March 10, 2021. As of the date of this Memorandum and Order, the matter remains pending.

The instant complaint is the second civil rights complaint plaintiff has filed in this Court to allege his civil rights were violated during the proceedings in United States v. Watson, No. 4:15-cr-440-AGF. On March 18, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six UnknownNamed Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) against Berry and Scowcroft. See Watson v. Berry, et al., No. 4:20-cv-423-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. 2020) (hereafter "Watson I"). In its June 22, 2020 Memorandum and Order, the Watson I Court summarized the underlying criminal proceedings and plaintiff's claims as follows.

The events relative to plaintiff's complaint arose from facts relative to his criminal case. United States v. Watson, No. 4:15CR440 AGF (E.D. Mo). Plaintiff's criminal issues began on August 30, 2014 when police officers with the City of Maryland Heights, Missouri approached a stopped car, and found Pierre Watson in the driver's seat. See United States v. Watson, No. 17-2588 (8th Cir. 2018). After arresting plaintiff on several outstanding warrants, the officers conducted an inventory search of the vehicle, and discovered: "four counterfeit payroll checks; a business check in the name of an insurance company; two pieces of perforated check stock; copies of a deposit ticket containing images of two checks drawn on a Bank of America account belonging to the Law Offices of J.P.; two photocopies of checks drawn on an Enterprise Bank and Trust account belonging to the law firm, Sher & Shabsin, P.C.; and a social security card that was not issued to Watson." Id.

As a result of the investigation, a federal grand jury returned an indictment on January 23, 2015 charging Watson and his co-defendant, Darisha Taylor, with the following violations: (1) aggravated identity theft against both Taylor and Watson, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, for using the name of J.F. during the commission of the crime of bank fraud; (2) possessing counterfeit implements against Watson, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(b), for possessing a template of a Tokio Marine Specialty Insurance Check; and (3) aggravated identity theft against Watson, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, for using the name of J.F., during the commission of the crime of bank fraud.¹

On October 2, 2015, the United States disclosed evidence pursuant to Rule 16. The evidence included the items seized from Watson's vehicle on August 30, 2014, two Maryland Heights police reports; a University City police report setting forth the passing of counterfeit securities by Jason Reese and others; a St. Louis County police report; records from Sher & Shabsin; and, a photographic line-up in which Watson was identified by Reese and others as the individual who provided the counterfeit checks. Counsel for Watson sought to dismiss Count 4 on the grounds that the Tokio Marine Specialty Insurance Company check was not a template within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 513(b).

Before the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss, the United States filed a superseding indictment on January 20, 2016. The superseding indictment included the following charges against Watson: (1) aggravated identity theft, in violation of18 U.S.C. § 1028A, Watson and Taylor used the name of M.S. during the commission of the crime of bank fraud; (2) possessing counterfeit implements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(b), Watson possessed a Tokio Marine and Specialty Insurance Company Check; (3) aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, for possessing the name of M.S. during the commission of the crime of bank fraud.²

Watson renewed his motion to dismiss Count 4 at his arraignment. As a result of co-defendant Darisha Taylor's plea of guilty on January 22, 2016, and to address new information received by the United States, on January 27, 2016, a second superseding indictment was returned by the federal grand jury. Watson was the sole defendant in the indictment charging: (1) aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, Watson and Taylor possessed the name of M.S. during the commission of the crime of bank fraud; (2) passing counterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a), Watson and Taylor passed a counterfeit Sher & Shabsin check in the amount of $869.50; (3) passing counterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a), Watson and Shontell Hill passed a counterfeit Sher and Shabsin check in the amount of $465.90; (4) passing counterfeit securities, in

...