Sanders v. Dobbs

District Court, E.D. Missouri·Decided November 12, 2021·No. 1:21-cv-00117·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION DONALD W. SANDERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:21-CV-00117-SEP ) MARK DOBBS, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Donald W. Sanders’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and Motion to Appoint Counsel. Docs. [2], [3]. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is granted, but his Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied without prejudice. Further, the Court assesses an initial partial filing fee of $1.00 and directs Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint. FACTS AND BACKGROUND 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 that has custody of the prisoner will then forward these monthly payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the prisoner’s account exceeds $10, until the filing fee is fully paid. Id. On September 8, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a Certified Inmate Account Statement. Doc. [4]. This document lists the withdrawals made from Plaintiff’s prison account since April 2021, but it does not indicate his account balances. Plaintiff states in a handwritten note on the first page that this is the only account statement he could obtain from the prison. When a prisoner is unable to provide the Court with a certified copy of his prison account statement, the Court is instructed to assess an amount “that is reasonable, based on whatever information the court has about the prisoner’s finances.” Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484 (8th Cir. 1997). The Court finds that, given the information available, an assessment of $1.00 is reasonable. Therefore, Plaintiff is required to pay an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. If Plaintiff is unable to pay the initial partial filing fee, he must submit a certified copy of his prison account statement in support of his claim. LEGAL STANDARD This 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 may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 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). That means that “if the essence of an allegation is discernible,” the court should “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)). But even pro se complaints must allege facts that, 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 to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). THE COMPLAINT On August 17, 2021, Plaintiff, an inmate at Memphis Federal Correctional Institution (MFCI), filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sheriff Mark Dobbs, Deputy Sheriff Derek House, and Deputy Sheriff Brandon Lowe, all of whom are employed by the Butler County Sheriff’s Department in Popular Bluff, Missouri. Also named as a defendant in this action is Amanda Altman, the attorney who represented Plaintiff in his underlying federal criminal case.1 See U.S. v. Sanders, 1:19-cr-26-SRC-2 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 15, 2019). Plaintiff brings this action against all defendants in their individual capacities only. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to his attorney’s ineffective assistance of counsel, and “seeks the Court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.” Doc. [1] at 4. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that he “suffered malicious abuse” during his arrest on January 14, 2019. Plaintiff submits that Defendant Dobbs kicked him in his back and face while he was handcuffed and that the other Defendants “took turns assaulting” him. Id. at 5. As a result, Plaintiff states that some of his teeth were knocked out. Id. It is unclear from the Complaint, however, how Defendants House and Lowe specifically assaulted Plaintiff, or if they assisted Defendant Dobbs in kicking him and damaging his teeth. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that he required medical attention but did not receive it until ten days after the alleged incident. Id. at 5. Plaintiff does not state whether one of the named Defendants denied him such medical care. For relief, Plaintiff “seeks [an] amount which is fair and reasonabl[e] in punitive damages along with phy[si]cal injuries.” DISCUSSION Having thoroughly reviewed and liberally construed Plaintiff’s complaint, and in consideration of Plaintiff’s self-represented status and the serious nature of the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff will be directed to file an amended pleading.

1 On September 17, 2020, Plaintiff pled guilty to Felon in Possession of Firearms and Attempting to Intimidate or Threaten a Government Witness. See U.S. v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sanders v. Dobbs, (E.D. Mo. 2021).

Sanders v. Dobbs (Sanders v. Dobbs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Estelle v. Gamble
429 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
McNeil v. United States
508 U.S. 106 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
United States v. Jessie Lee Jackson
640 F.2d 614 (Eighth Circuit, 1981)
Kevin Ward v. Bradley Smith
721 F.3d 940 (Eighth Circuit, 2013)
Samvel Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
760 F.3d 843 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)
James Solomon v. Deputy U.S. Marshal Thomas
795 F.3d 777 (Eighth Circuit, 2015)
Mark Neubauer v. FedEx Corporation
849 F.3d 400 (Eighth Circuit, 2017)
Patric Patterson v. Kennie Bolden
902 F.3d 845 (Eighth Circuit, 2018)
Martin v. Aubuchon
623 F.2d 1282 (Eighth Circuit, 1980)