Goodson v. County of St. Charles Department of Corrections et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $29.15 within thirty (30) days of the da te 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 o riginal proceeding. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall mail to plaintiff a copy of the Court's form Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff sha ll file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the dat e of this Memorandum and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to comply with this Memorandum and Order, the Court may dismiss this action without further proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel [ECF No. 5 ] is DENIED without prejudice. (Amended/Supplemental Pleadings due by 2/4/2015.). Signed by Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins on January 5, 2015. (BRP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHARLES LOUIS GOODSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF ST. CHARLES
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:14-CV-1845-NCC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Charles Goodson, an inmate at
Northeast 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 $29.15.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Additionally, the Court will require 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 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 $145.75, and an average monthly
balance of $18.54. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee. Accordingly, the
Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $29.15, 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 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).
In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give the complaint
the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The Court
must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly
baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,
236 (1974).
-2-
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, appearing to allege failure to protect
and deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition. Named as defendants are the County
of St. Charles Department of Corrections; Unknown Tillot (Sergeant); Unknown Krankel
(Corporal); and Unknown Nosser (Correctional Officer).
Plaintiff alleges that on March 21, 2014, he was assaulted by another prisoner.
According to plaintiff, instead of breaking up the ensuing fight, the correctional officers
encouraged the prisoners to continue fighting. Plaintiff further alleges that he was denied
medical treatment following the fight.
Discussion
The complaint is silent as to whether defendants are being sued 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 the County of St. Charles Department of Corrections
was responsible for the alleged violations of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. As a result, the
complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted against the County of St. Charles
Department of Corrections or the other named defendants.
-3-
Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and because some of his claims appear to have
merit, the Court will allow plaintiff to file an amended complaint. In order to sue defendants in
their individual capacities, plaintiff must specifically say so in the complaint. Rule 8(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the complaint contain Aa short and plain statement
of the claim showing that [plaintiff] is entitled to relief . . .@ Rule 10(a) requires the title of the
complaint, or caption, to “name all the parties,” and Rule 10(b) requires a plaintiff to Astate [his]
claims . . . in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of
circumstances.@
Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff is hereby notified that the filing of an amended complaint replaces the original
complaint, and so he must include each and every one of his claims in the amended complaint.
E.g., 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 within thirty days, the Court will
dismiss this action without prejudice.
With regard to plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, the Court notes that there is
no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Nelson v. Redfield
Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether to appoint
counsel, the Court considers several factors, including (1) whether the plaintiff has presented
non-frivolous allegations supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2) whether the plaintiff will
substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need to further
investigate and present the facts related to the plaintiff's allegations; and (4) whether the factual
and legal issues presented by the action are complex. See Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319,
1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005.
-4-
It is not yet apparent that plaintiff can state non-frivolous claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Further, the Court finds that the facts and legal issues raised by plaintiff are not so complicated
that the appointment of counsel is warranted at this time.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $29.15
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 HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall mail to plaintiff a copy of the Court's
form “Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint.”
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within
thirty (30) days of the date of this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to comply with this Memorandum
and Order, the Court may dismiss this action without further proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel
[ECF No. 5] is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 5th day of January, 2015.
/s/Noelle C. Collins
NOELLE C. COLLINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-5-
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?