Vassar v. Steele et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #6] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $35.16 within thirty (30) days of the date of this O rder. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to AClerk, 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 plaintiff shall submit an amended complaint on a court-provided form no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #7] is DENIED without prejudice. 7 6 ( Initial Partial Filing Fee due by 8/1/2014.) Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 7/1/14. cc: form mailed to petitioner.(CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
TROY STEELE, et al.,
No. 4:14CV430 JCH
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Larry Vassar (registration no. 164717),
an inmate at South Central Correctional Center (“SCCC”), for leave to commence this action
without payment of the required filing fee [Doc. #6]. 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 $35.16. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(b)(1). Additionally, the Court will
order plaintiff to submit 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, 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 $49.92, and an average monthly
balance of $175.79. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee. Accordingly, the
Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $35.16, which is 20 percent of plaintiff=s average
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, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733 (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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).
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.
Plaintiff Vassar, along with four co-plaintiffs, filed the instant action on February 24, 2014,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against thirty-seven (37) officials at Potosi Correctional Center
(“PCC”) in both their individual and official capacities for alleged violations of his Eighth
Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. See Baker v. Steele, 4:14CV333
JAR (E.D.Mo.). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 20 and Georgeoff v. Barnes, No. 2:09CV14 ERW,
2009 WL 1405497 (E.D.Mo. May 19, 2009), the Court struck plaintiff Vassar, as well as the other
three co-plaintiffs from the action, allowing the case to proceed with only the lead plaintiff in the
case, Barry Baker. In its Memorandum and Order striking the co-plaintiffs from the case, the
Court instructed the Clerk of Court to open new cases for each of the four co-plaintiffs, utilizing
the original complaint. 1 Thus, presently before the Court is plaintiff Vassar’s, and his
co-plaintiff’s, original complaint.
1 See Baker v. Steele, 4:14CV333 JAR; Perry v. Steele, 4:14CV423 CEJ; Muhammad v. Steele,
Plaintiff Vassar brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against thirty-seven (37)
officials at Potosi Correctional Center (“PCC”) in both their individual and official capacities for
alleged violations of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
The complaint seeks monetary and injunctive relief.
Plaintiff asserts, through the writings of plaintiff Barry Baker, that in June and July 2013,
he and several inmates at PCC filed grievances against defendants Clifton Bandy and Caleb Brown
for using racial slurs against him and other inmates. In response to defendants’ continued verbal
harassment, plaintiff and other inmates began refusing to respond to Bandy or Brown during
count, that is, they refused to say their names or identification numbers as required by prison rules.
Plaintiff claims that from July 16, 2013 through July 29, 2013, defendants Troy Steele,
Jamie Crump, Cindy Griffith, Gregory Dunn, and Daniel Bryan, who are all supervisors,
authorized the other defendants to place plaintiff and others on strip cell status as a result of the
inmates’ violation of the prison’s rules. On July 16, 2013, defendants Willie Forbes, Unknown
Henson, Jason Davis, Unknown Coulton, Unknown Whited, Unknown Wolf, and Unknown
Douglas removed all of plaintiff’s property from his cell and left him with one pair of socks, one
t-shirt, one pair of underwear, and a mattress. No other items were permitted. Defendants
conducted cell searches three times daily.
The following day, defendant Bryan authorized defendants to commence searching
plaintiff’s cell – and others’ cells - nine times per day. This continued through July 23, 2013. On
July 17, 2013, defendants Walker, Bandy, and Brown took away plaintiff’s socks and t-shirt and
took away other inmates’ prescription eyeglasses.
4:14CV425 CDP; Vassar v. Steele, 4:14CV430 JCH; Fields v. Steele, 4:14CV429 TCM.
On the morning of July 24, 2013, defendants Coulton and Davis searched plaintiff’s cell
and removed his mattress, forcing him to sleep on the concrete floor, which resulted in back pain.
Defendants did not give plaintiff a smock or a security blanket, which plaintiff says is provided for
by prison policy.
From July 24, 2013 through July 26, 2013, plaintiff’s cell was searched once per hour for a
total of forty-eight hours. During those same forty-eighty hours, defendants Wayne Scroggins,
Unknown Baker, Davis, Forbes, Leach, Unknown Henson, Cooke, Walker, Rich, Hale, Craddock,
Unknown Thompson, Unknown Crocker, Unknown Boyer, Unknown Stone, Unknown Davidson,
Coulton, Unknown Jarvis, Whited, Unknown Wolf, Unknown Cain, Unknown Young, Unknown
Jones, Unknown Bellis, Unknown Brestemeyer, Clack, Unknown Johnson, Unknown Kline,
Brown, and Bandy took turns kicking plaintiff’s cell doors every fifteen minutes for forty-eight
Defendants also left the lights on in plaintiff’s cell.
All of this resulted in sleep
Plaintiff claims defendants Steele, Crump, Griffith, Dunn, and Bryan authorized the hourly
searches and the kicking of his cell doors every fifteen minutes to intentionally cause sleep
Because plaintiff’s complaint was drafted by Barry Baker and contains allegations relating
to plaintiff Vassar as well as his original co-plaintiffs, the Court will require plaintiff Vassar to
submit an amended complaint, on a court-form, within thirty (30) days of the date of this
Memorandum and Order. As currently drafted, it is simply impossible to tell exactly what
allegations in the original complaint directly pertain to plaintiff Vassar.
Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file an amended
complaint on a court-provided form. Plaintiff is warned that the filing of an amended complaint
replaces the original complaint, and claims that are not re-alleged are deemed abandoned. See In
re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005).
If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint on a court-provided form within thirty (30) days, the
Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.
As plaintiff will be submitting an amended complaint in this matter, the Court will deny his
motion for appointment of counsel, without prejudice, at this time. Plaintiff has not yet written a
pleading by himself in this Court, therefore, the Court declines to find that he is unable to represent
his own interests at this time.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc.
#6] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $35.16
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance
payable to AClerk, 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 plaintiff shall submit an amended complaint on a
court-provided form no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc.
#7] is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon submission of the amended complaint, the Court
shall again review this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall mail to plaintiff a copy of the Court=s
Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint form.
Dated this 1st day of July, 2014.
/s/Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?