Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
EDREAM SAYONTA EVANS,                                                        )
)
Plaintiff,                                                                   )
)
v.                                                                           )                                              No.  4:09-CV-1044-DJS
)
PAULA PERKINS BRYANT, et al.,                                                )
)
Defendants.                                                                  )
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM
This matter is before the Court upon the application of
Edream  Sayonta  Evans  for  leave  to  commence  this  action  without
payment of the required filing fee.
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
prison  account  to  pay  the  entire  fee, the  Court  must  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.    See  28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1).   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.    See
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.  See             28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),(2).   A review of plaintiff's account statement
indicates  an  average  monthly  deposit  of                                  $69.50,  and  an  average
monthly account balance of $3.22.   Plaintiff has insufficient funds
to pay the entire filing fee.    Accordingly, the Court will assess
an  initial  partial  filing  fee  of  $13.90,  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  may
dismiss  a  complaint  filed  in  forma  pauperis  at  any  time  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  "it
lacks  an  arguable  basis  either  in  law  or  in  fact."    Neitzke  v.
Williams,  490  U.S.  319,  325  (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,  127 S. Ct.  1955,  1974  (2007).
2




In  reviewing  a  pro  se  complaint  under  §  1915(e)(2)(B),
the  Court  must  give  the  complaint  the  benefit  of  a  liberal
construction.    Haines  v.  Kerner,  404  U.S.  519,  520  (1972).      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  (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes,  416 U.S.
232,  236  (1974).
The complaint
Plaintiff,  a  pre-trial  detainee  at  the  St.  Louis  City
Justice  Center,  seeks  monetary  and  injunctive  relief  in  this  42
U.S.C.  §  1983  action  against  defendants  State  of  Missouri,  Judge
Paula  Perkins  Bryant,  and  Judge  Joan  L.  Moriarty.     Plaintiff
alleges that defendants have "placed an uncertified indictment on
[his] case and a[n] illegal warrant to hold  [him]."
In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971), the Supreme
Court directed federal courts to abstain from hearing cases where
"the action complained of constitutes the basis of an ongoing state
judicial  proceeding,  the  proceedings  implicate  important  state
interests,  and  an  adequate   opportunity  exists  in  the  state
proceedings to raise constitutional challenges."   Harmon v. City of
Kansas City, Missouri, 197 F.3d 321, 325 (8th Cir. 1999); see also,
Fuller v. Ulland,  76 F.3d  957,  959  (8th Cir.  1996).
Having  carefully  reviewed  plaintiff's  allegations,  the
Court  concludes  that  the  Younger  criteria  are  satisfied  and  that
3




abstention  is  warranted.     Plaintiff  states  that  he  has  been
indicted  in  a  state  criminal  matter  in  the  City  of  St.  Louis;
plaintiff's allegations implicate important state interests; and an
adequate  opportunity  exists  in  the  state  proceeding  to  raise
constitutional    challenges.                                               Finding    no    "extraordinary
circumstances" that would justify interfering with a pending state
judicial  proceeding,  the  Court  will  dismiss  the  instant  action,
without prejudice.    See Younger,  401 U.S. at  43-44.1
Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff is seeking habeas
corpus relief, he must file a separate habeas action, after having
first exhausted available state remedies.
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's 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 $13.90 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
1In addition, the Court notes that State of Missouri is not
a suable entity under  §  1983, see Will v. Michigan Dept. of State
Police,  491 U.S.  58,  63  (1989)  (state is not a  “person” under  §
1983); and judges are immune from liability for damages under  §
1983 where the alleged wrongdoings were performed within their
judicial capacity.    See Stump v. Sparkman,  435 U.S.  349,  356-57
(1978).
4




case  number;  and                                                         (4)  that  the  remittance  is  for  an  original
proceeding.
IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  based  upon  the  Younger
abstention  doctrine,  the  Clerk  shall  not  issue  process  or  cause
process   to   issue   upon   the   complaint.                             See                                                 28   U.S.C.
§  1915(e)(2)(B).
An  appropriate  order  shall  accompany  this  order  and
memorandum.
Dated this                                                                 30th    day of July,  2009.
/s/Donald J. Stohr
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5

Download 13623.pdf

Missouri Law