Barkfelt v. United States District Court

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay an initial partial filing fee of $1.71 within thirty (30) days from 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 and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 02/25/2016. (KCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

DALEC.BARKFELT,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)
)

v.

No. 4:16-CV-246-RLW

)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,)
)

Defendant.

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the motion of Dale C. Barkfelt
(registration no. 1095173) for leave to commence this action without payment of
the required filing fee [Doc. #2].

After reviewing plaintiffs inmate financial

account statement, the motion will be granted, and plaintiff will be assessed an
initial partial filing fee of $1. 71, which is twenty percent of his average monthly
deposits.

In addition, the court will dismiss this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court may 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 against a defendant who
1

is immune from such relief.
either law or in fact."

An action is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis in

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989).

An action

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (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.
(2009).

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950-51

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 plaintiffs proffered

2

conclusion is the most plausible or whether it is more likely that no misconduct
occurred.

Id. at 1950-52.

In reviewing a pro se complaint under§ 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must give
the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction.
519, 520 (1972).

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

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).
The Complaint

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Farmington Correctional Center, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
District Court.

Named as the sole defendant is the United States

Plaintiff states that he is facing both state and federal sentences.

He alleges that his state sentence is presently running consecutively, rather than
concurrently, to his federal sentence.

Plaintiff summarily alleges that defendant

"misfiled . . . the evidence that proved [his] case."

He seeks $5 million in

damages for false incarceration.
Discussion

Having carefully reviewed the complaint, the Court will liberally construe
this action as having been brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). A Bivens action for

3

monetary damages cannot be maintained against the United States or a federal
agency.

See FDIC v. Myer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-85 (1994).

courts are not suable entities.

Moreover, federal

Cf Harris v. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western

Dist., 787 F.2d 427 (8th Cir. 1986) (courts are not "persons" for§ 1983 purposes).
For these reasons, this action will be dismissed as legally frivolous. 1
In accordance with the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay an initial partial filing
fee of $1.71 within thirty (30) days from 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

1

The court notes that plaintiff currently has a pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas
corpus action pending in this court, Barlifelt v. Villmer, No. 4: 16-CV-62-JMB (E.D.
Mo.), in which he is challenging the execution of his state and federal sentences, and
therefore, the court will not instruct the Clerk of Court to send plaintiff any
additional form habeas petitions.
4

frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and

'2016.

ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5