Wallace v. Crouch

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri
DecidedJanuary 3, 2022
Docket4:21-cv-01036
StatusUnknown

This text of Wallace v. Crouch (Wallace v. Crouch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wallace v. Crouch, (E.D. Mo. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT E. WALLACE, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:21-CV-1036 RLW ) TAMRA CROUCH, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Robert E. Wallace, Jr. for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. (Docket No. 3). 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 $41.29. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will direct plaintiff to file an amended complaint. 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. 6). The account statement shows an average

monthly deposit of $206.43. The Court will therefore assess an initial partial filing fee of $41.29, which is 20 percent of plaintiff’s average monthly deposit. 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 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) (stating that court must accept factual allegations in complaint as true, but is not required to “accept as true any legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”). When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person 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 complaints filed by self-represented persons 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) (stating

that federal courts are not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”). In addition, affording a self- represented person’s 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). The Complaint Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who is currently incarcerated at the Potosi Correctional Center in Mineral Point, Missouri. He brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming Nurse Practitioner Tamra Crouch and Corizon Health Care as defendants. (Docket

No. 1 at 2-3). Nurse Practitioner Crouch is sued in both an individual capacity and an official capacity. Plaintiff’s complaint appears to concern the denial of medical treatment. But plaintiff has not provided any factual allegations against either defendant, as he left the “Statement of Claim” portion of the form complaint entirely blank. (Docket No. 1 at 3). Plaintiff also did not list any injuries or request any relief. (Docket No. 1 at 4-5). Discussion As stated above, plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who has brought a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court reviewed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on that review, plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim because plaintiff has not made any factual allegations against either of the two named defendants. Because plaintiff is a self-represented litigant, the Court will give him the opportunity to file an amended complaint according to the instructions set forth below.

Plaintiff should type or neatly print his amended complaint on the Court’s civil rights form, which will be provided to him. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.06(A) (“All actions brought by self- represented plaintiffs or petitioners should be filed on Court-provided forms”). If the amended complaint is handwritten, the writing must be legible.

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

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
McNeil v. United States
508 U.S. 106 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
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)
Raymond L. Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC
820 F.3d 371 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)
Barton Ex Rel. Estate of Barton v. Taber
820 F.3d 958 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)
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)
Madewell v. Roberts
909 F.2d 1203 (Eighth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wallace v. Crouch, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-crouch-moed-2022.