Jones v. Agnew et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $2.60 within thirty (30) days of the date of thi s Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to Clerk, United States District Court, and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for an original proc eeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #4] is DENIED as moot.( Initial Partial Filing Fee due by 9/28/2015.). Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 8/28/15. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
GARFIELD JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRENDA AGNEW, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15CV121 ACL

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff, Garfield Jones, an inmate at
Dunklin County Jail, for leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing
fee. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that plaintiff does not have sufficient funds to
pay the entire filing fee and will assess an initial partial filing fee of $2.60. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1). Furthermore, based upon a review of the complaint, the Court finds that the
complaint should be dismissed 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 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 sixmonth 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, until the filing fee is fully paid. Id.
Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit and a certified copy of his prison account statement
for the six-month period immediately preceding the submission of his complaint. A review of
plaintiff's account indicates an average monthly deposit of $6.16, and an average monthly
balance of $13.04. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee. Accordingly, the
Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $2.60, which is 20 percent of plaintiff's average
monthly balance.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is
frivolous if it Alacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.@ Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
328 (1989); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). An action is malicious if it is
undertaken for the purpose of harassing the named defendants and not for the purpose of
vindicating a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 461-63 (E.D.N.C. 1987),
aff=d 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not plead
Aenough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@ Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil
rights during his incarceration in the Pemiscot County Jail after he was arrested on December 20,
2013.

-2-

Plaintiff asserts that defendant Brenda Agnew, the Supervisor at the Jail, and Gary
Gilmore, a Jailer, generally denied him “medical assistance” even though he was in a “medical
cell.” Plaintiff fails to tell the Court what his medical needs were during this time period.
Plaintiff also claims he was denied “outside contact over the phone,” and he “suffered an injury
to his head.” Plaintiff again fails to elaborate as to what type of injury he suffered and whether
or not the injury was treated.
Plaintiff states in a conclusory manner that his “injuries were also evidence of a reported
crime committed which had been against [him], the police and the jailers withheld that
information by obstructing justice under the order or wishes of the Caruthersville City Police
Officers.” Plaintiff has not indicated what type of claim he is pursuing regarding this assertion
or which defendant is connected to this claim.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Namely, he “wants people

charged and fired.”
Discussion
The Court has listed above the sum total of plaintiff’s allegations in this matter.
Unfortunately, plaintiff’s limited allegations are merely conclusory. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.
Ct. 1937, 1949-51 (2009) (plaintiff’s allegations include “legal conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements”).
Moreover, plaintiff has failed to state his claims in a way which link his factual statement to a
named defendant. Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990) (ALiability under §
1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the alleged deprivation of rights.@);
see also Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (claim not cognizable under §
1983 where plaintiff fails to allege defendant was personally involved in or directly responsible
for incidents that injured plaintiff).

-3-

Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to tell the Court exactly what medical condition he was
suffering from, and how each defendant allegedly denied him care during his stay at the
Pemiscot County Jail. Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997) (“In order to
show deliberate indifference, plaintiff must allege that he suffered objectively serious medical
needs and that defendants actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those needs.”).
Last, plaintiff has failed to specify whether he is suing defendants in their official or
individual capacities. Where a “complaint is silent about the capacity in which [plaintiff] is
suing defendant, [a district court must] interpret the complaint as including only official-capacity
claims.” Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995); Nix v.
Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1989). Naming a government official in his or her official
capacity is the equivalent of naming the government entity that employs the official. Will v.
Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). To state a claim against a municipality
or a government official in his or her official capacity, plaintiff must allege that a policy or
custom of the government entity is responsible for the alleged constitutional violation. Monell v.
Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). The instant complaint does not contain
any allegations that a policy or custom of a government entity was responsible for the alleged
violations of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
For all of the aforementioned reasons, plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc.
#2] is GRANTED.

-4-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $2.60
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance
payable to “Clerk, United States District Court,” and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his
prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for an original
proceeding.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc.
#4] is DENIED as moot.
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 28th day of August, 2015

___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-