Vaughn v. State of Missouri
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis under 42:1983 (prisoner) filed by Plaintiff Darren K. Vaughn; motion is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $11.22 wit hin 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 the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint because the complaint is legally frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both.An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. (Initial Partial Filing Fee due by 7/10/2013.) Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 6/10/13. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DARREN K. VAUGHN,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:13CV821 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff (registration no.
1150301), an inmate at Jefferson City Correctional Center, 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 $11.22. 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 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, 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
$56.08, and an average monthly balance of $2.46. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to
pay the entire filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee
of $11.22, which is 20 percent of plaintiff’s average monthly deposit.
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 “lacks an arguable basis in either law or
fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action is malicious if it is
-2-
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).
To determine whether an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, the Court must engage in a two-step inquiry. First, the Court must identify
the allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950-51 (2009).
These include “legal
conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are]
supported by mere conclusory statements.” Id. at 1949. Second, the Court must
determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 1950-51.
This is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 1950. The plaintiff is required to
plead facts that show more than the “mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. The Court
must review the factual allegations in the complaint “to determine if they plausibly
suggest an entitlement to relief.”
Id. at 1951.
When faced with alternative
explanations for the alleged misconduct, the Court may exercise its judgment in
determining whether plaintiff’s conclusion is the most plausible or whether it is more
likely that no misconduct occurred. Id. at 1950, 51-52.
The Complaint
-3-
Plaintiff, an inmate at Jefferson City Correctional Center, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights. Plaintiff asserts
that the application of the Missouri “escape rule” violated his right to due process
when his criminal appeal was denied and dismissed in the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Plaintiff seeks a “permanent injunction against [plaintiff’s] conviction” as relief
in this action.
Discussion
The escape rule is a judicially-created doctrine in Missouri that operates to
deny the right of appeal to a defendant who escapes justice. Wagner v. State, 172
S.W.3d 922, 924 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). The escape rule applies to errors that
occurred prior and up to the time of escape. In applying the escape rule, the relevant
inquiry is whether the escape adversely affected the criminal justice system. Id.
Effectively, the escape rule operates to deny the right of appeal to a defendant who
“escapes” justice. See State v. Troupe, 891 S.W.2d 808, 809 (Mo. 1995).
To the extent that plaintiff is requesting that this Court review his conviction
and sentence (and appeal) and make a determination that his due process rights were
violated when the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal under the Missouri
escape rule, the Court will decline to do so. First and foremost, this Court does not
have subject matter jurisdiction “over challenges to state court decisions in particular
-4-
cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state
court’s action was unconstitutional. Review of those decisions may be had only in
[the United States Supreme Court].” District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983).
Moreover, given that the sole relief plaintiff is seeking is an order basically
vacating his original sentence and the opportunity to be resentenced (or have his
appeal reheard), the Court finds that plaintiff's claims are cognizable exclusively
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, not 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
475, 490 (1973)(habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for prisoners attacking the
validity of the fact or length of their confinement). As such, the instant § 1983
complaint is subject to dismissal.
Additionally, a prisoner may not bring a § 1983 suit, such as this one, where
the judgment would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, continued
imprisonment, or sentence unless the conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged,
or called into question by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir. 1995);
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (applying rule in § 1983 suit seeking
declaratory relief).
Accordingly,
-5-
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 $11.22 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 the Clerk shall not issue process or cause
process to issue upon the complaint because the complaint is legally frivolous or fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both.
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 10th day of June, 2013.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-6-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?