White v. City of St. Louis et al, No. 4:2010cv01842 - Document 19 (E.D. Mo. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #10] is GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $6.73 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 p roceeding. 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 or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motions for preliminary injunctions requesting that this Court intervene in his ongoing criminal prosecution [Doc. #12 and #14] are DENIED AS MOOT.An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. 10 12 14 ( Initial Partial Filing Fee due by 4/21/2011.) Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 3/21/11. (CLA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
White v. City of St. Louis et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION YANCEY LAMARR WHITE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:10CV1842 HEA OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff (registration no. 1221983), an inmate at Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center ( ERDCC ), for leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee [Doc. #10]. 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 $6.73. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Furthermore, based upon a review of the complaint, the Court finds that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 six-month 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 $33.67, and an average monthly balance of $8.49. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $6.73, 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 lacks an arguable basis in either law or -2- fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). 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). 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. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950-51 (2009). 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 plaintiff s conclusion is the most plausible or whether it is more likely that no misconduct occurred. Id. at 1950, 51-52. -3- The Complaint Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights in the course of his arrest and prosecution for robbery and armed criminal action. Named as defendants are: the City of St. Louis; Jennifer M. Joyce (Circuit Attorney); Erin Granger (Assistant Circuit Attorney); Daniel Isom (Chief, St. Louis Police Department); Steven Ortbals (police officer); James Davis (police officer); Michael Strong (police officer); Pierre Benoist (police officer); and Thomas Lake (police officer). Plaintiff alleges that he was falsely arrested by St. Louis City Police Officers and imprisoned in St. Louis City Jail in February of 2010. Plaintiff states that St. Louis City prosecutors engaged in misconduct relating to his arrest and prosecution. Plaintiff additionally claims that he was subjected to constitutional errors by several St. Louis City police officers relating to the line-up which occurred prior to his arrest. Discussion Plaintiff s claims are barred and subject to dismissal under the guidelines set forth in Heck v. Humphrey. As set forth in Heck, a prisoner may not recover damages in a § 1983 suit where the judgment would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, continued imprisonment, or sentence unless the conviction or -4- sentence is reversed, expunged, or called into question by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir. 1995); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (applying rule in § 1983 suit seeking declaratory relief). The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that plaintiff was convicted of armed criminal action and robbery in St. Louis City Court on January 5, 2011. Plaintiff was sentenced on February 25, 2011 to sixteen years imprisonment for robbery in the First Degree, as well as three years imprisonment for armed criminal action, to run concurrently. See State v. White, Case No.1022-CR03104, available on Missouri Case.Net at https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet. In light of plaintiff s convictions, plaintiff cannot sustain a claim for relief in the present action. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #10] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $6.73 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- 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 or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff s motions for preliminary injunctions requesting that this Court intervene in his ongoing criminal prosecution [Doc. #12 and #14] are DENIED AS MOOT. An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Dated this 21st day of March, 2011. HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -6-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
