Bailey v. Sheriff of Warren County, MO et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECFNo. 5] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $25.00 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. 5 ( Initial Partial Filing Fee due by 4/2/2016.). Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 3/3/16. (KKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JOHN THOMAS BAILEY,
UNKNOWN SHERIFF OF WARREN
COUNTY, MO, et al.,
No. 4:16CV81 CEJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed plaintiff’s financial information, the Court assesses a partial
initial filing fee of $25.00, which is twenty percent of his average monthly deposit. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b). Additionally, the Court finds that this action must be dismissed under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Standard of Review
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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
A plaintiff must
demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.”
Id. at 679. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
common sense. Id. at 679.
Plaintiff brings this action against the Sheriff of Warren County and an unknown deputy
United States Marshal. From March 9, 2015, through May 4, 2015, plaintiff was held in the
Warren County Jail under federal custody. On February 26, 2015, this Court granted plaintiff’s
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Bailey v. United
States, 4:15CV304 CEJ (E.D. Mo.). In its order granting relief, the Court ordered the United
States Marshals Service to transport plaintiff from the Bureau of Prisons to a location where
plaintiff could be present for resentencing on March 27, 2015. On March 27, 2015, the Court
reduced plaintiff’s sentence from 125 months to 63 months’ imprisonment.
Plaintiff states that during his confinement in the Warren County Jail he was not given
access to a law library. Because he did not have access to legal materials, he did not know that
he could file a § 2255 motion in the district court or a § 2241 petition with the BOP. He does not
state, however, how filing a successive § 2255 motion might have helped him.
On July 2, 2015, plaintiff was transferred to USP McCreary. He was assigned to a high
security area. On July 9, 2015, he was assaulted by several inmates and suffered severe injuries.
He says he was entitled to be placed in a medium security area, and he claims that the injuries
were the result of the misclassification. He seeks to hold the Sheriff of Warren County liable for
this misclassification by the BOP because, he claims, if he had access to a law library he would
have known to seek an injunction or file § 2241 petition with the BOP preventing the
misclassification. He seeks to hold the unknown deputy marshal liable because he “should have
known” that plaintiff was being denied access to the courts at the Warren County Jail.
Plaintiff previously brought a civil action in this Court on these same facts and against
the parties named in this case. See Bailey v. Warden Unknown Kruger, 4:15CV1393 JAR (E.D.
The Court dismissed the action against defendants Unknown Sheriff and Unknown
Deputy Marshal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. The Court dismissed the remaining defendants in that case for improper venue.
Because the allegations in this case are duplicative of those raised in Bailey v. Warden
Unknown Kruger, 4:15CV1393 JAR (E.D. Mo.), this action must be dismissed. E.g., Cooper v.
Delo, 997 F.2d 376, 377 (8th Cir. 1993) (§ 1915(e) dismissal has res judicata effect on future IFP
Moreover, the alleged causal connection between the lack of a law library in the Warren
County Jail and plaintiff’s subsequent assault at USP McCreary is wholly speculative and
conclusory. As a result, the complaint does not state a plausible claim for relief under § 1983,
and this case must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Because plaintiff has wasted the Court’s resources by filing this same action twice, the
his action will be dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 5] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $25.00
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
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 3rd day of March, 2016.
CAROL E. JACKSON
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?