Schell v. Bernstein

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 06/22/2015. (CBL)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION STANLEY A. SCHELL, Petitioner, v. HON. SCOTT L. BERNSTEIN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:15CV00899 ERW MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, a civil detainee, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Having reviewed plaintiff’s financial information, the Court grants the motion. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), 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 for relief under § 1983, a complaint must plead more than “legal conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.” Plaintiff is awaiting trial in probate court to determine whether he should be civil committed. He complains that defendant, a Missouri Circuit Court Judge, has denied his right to represent himself in the action. He believes that his constitutional rights are being violated. And he seeks an order directing the state court to allow him to defend himself in the action. “[T]he remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980). “[T]he writ of mandamus has traditionally been used in the federal courts only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Id. at 35 (quotations and citations omitted). Federal district courts are courts of original jurisdiction; they lack subject matter jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of state court decisions. Postma v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan, 74 F.3d 160, 162 (8th Cir. 1996). Therefore, the relief requested by plaintiff does not fall within the Court’s prescribed jurisdiction, and this action is dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. So Ordered this 22nd day of June, 2015. E. RICHARD WEBBER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?