Smith v. Griffith et al
Filing
9
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #4] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay an initial partial filing fee of $24.36 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 plaintiff shall show cause within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to fully exhaust his prison remedies prior to f iling this actionIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to respond or to otherwise comply with this Order, without first showing good cause, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further notice. 4 ( Show Cause Response due by 7/22/2016.) Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 6/22/16. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CINDY GRIFFITH, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:16CV535 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the application of Christopher Smith for
leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee [Doc. #4].
Upon consideration of plaintiff=s financial information, the Court will grant the
motion and assess an initial partial filing fee of $24.36, which is twenty percent of
plaintiff’s six-month average deposit. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a).
In addition,
having carefully reviewed the amended complaint [Doc. #5], the Court will order
plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust
his prison remedies.
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
is immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if Ait lacks an arguable basis in
either law or in fact.@ 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 Aenough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@ Bell Atl. 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, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79
These include Alegal conclusions@ and A[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements.@
Id. Second, the Court must determine whether the complaint states a plausible
claim for relief. Id. at 680-82. This is a Acontext-specific task that requires the
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.@ Id. at 681.
The plaintiff is required to plead facts that show more than the Amere possibility of
misconduct.@ Id. The Court must review the factual allegations in the complaint
Ato determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.@ Id. at 681-82.
When faced with alternative explanations for the alleged misconduct, the Court
may exercise its judgment in determining whether plaintiff=s proffered conclusion
is the most plausible or whether it is more likely that no misconduct occurred.
2
Id.
Moreover, in reviewing a pro se complaint under ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court
must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction.
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
Haines v. Kerner,
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 Amended Complaint
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Potosi Correctional Center, brings this 42 U.S.C. '
1983 action against Cindy Griffith (Warden), Brittney Coffman (Correctional
Officer), and Shane Pashia (Caseworker). On page 3 of the amended complaint,
plaintiff states, “I have filed an I.R.R. on the 26th of April which is the first step in the
grievance policy.” Page 8 of the amended complaint is a letter to this Court, in
which plaintiff states, “I filed on the 28th of April. I have your copies of the I.R.R.
coming to you as soon as I get them from the caseworker and the process of the
grievance procedure moves along.”
Discussion
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, A[n]o action shall be brought with
respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law,
by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such
administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.@ 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(a).
3
Moreover, pursuant to Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 733-40 (2001), exhaustion is
required where prison administrative remedies are available, even if the available
administrative remedies do not provide the precise, or full, relief sought. Lyon v.
Krol, 305 F.3d 806, 808 (8th Cir. 2002). Prisoners are required to fully exhaust
their prison remedies prior to filing a complaint in Federal Court.
It does not appear that plaintiff has yet exhausted his prison grievance
remedies. Because plaintiff is a prisoner and is proceeding pro se, the Court will
give him an opportunity show cause why this action should not be dismissed,
without prejudice to refiling at a later date, for failure to exhaust all of his prison
grievances prior to filing this action. In so doing, plaintiff should set forth the dates
that his appeals, if any, were filed and/or were denied. If plaintiff fails to comply,
the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further notice.
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. #4] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay an initial partial filing
fee of $24.36 within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Plaintiff is
instructed to make his remittance payable to "Clerk, United States District Court,"
4
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 show cause within thirty
(30) days from the date of this Order why this action should not be dismissed for
failure to fully exhaust his prison remedies prior to filing this action
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to respond or to otherwise
comply with this Order, without first showing good cause, the Court will dismiss
this action without prejudice and without further notice.
Dated this 22nd day of June, 2016
___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?