Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARCUS HOLMES,                                                                )
)
Plaintiff,                                                                    )
                                                                              )
v.                                                                            )                                              No.  4:09-CV-1434-DJS
                                                                              )
KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK,                                                     )
INC. OF MISSOURI, et al.,                                                     )
)
Defendants.                                                                   )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the application of
Marcus Holmes (registration no. 024147) 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                                   $00.00,  and  an  average
monthly account balance of $00.0.   Plaintiff has insufficient funds
to  pay  any  portion  of  the  entire  filing  fee.    Accordingly,  the
Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee at this time.
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  “it  lacks  an
arguable basis in either law or in fact.”   Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 328 (1989).   An action is malicious when it is undertaken
for the purpose of harassing litigants 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
2




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 proffered conclusion is the most plausible or
whether  it  is  more  likely  that  no  misconduct  occurred.    Id.  at
1950,  1951-52.
The complaint
Plaintiff,   an   inmate   at   the   Martin   Correctional
Institution  in  Indiantown,  Florida,  brings  this  42  U.S.C.  §  1983
action against Keefe Commissary Network, Inc. of Missouri, T. Reid
("Chief Deputy Warden"), Unknown Vicer (Canteen Supervisor, Florida
Department of Corrections), and Walter McNeil  (Secretary, Florida
3




Department of Corrections).   Plaintiff generally alleges that Keefe
Commissary  "has  knowingly  shown  discriminatory  practices  towards
prisoners'  dietary  food  restrictions  ---'Muslim  prisoners  who  do
not  eat'  any  pork  foods."    He  claims  that  commissary  items  are
overpriced,  and  that  defendants  have  failed  to  follow  their  own
rules  and  regulations  relative  to  providing  "inmates  with  the
minimum  due  process  requirements"  and  "ensuring  that  the  [food]
program  and  services                                                       .  are  administered  in  accordance  with
state  and  federal  laws."  For  relief,  plaintiff  seeks  monetary
damages, as well an injunction, ordering Keefe Commissary to supply
items, such as "big boxes of a variety of oatmeal  .  .  . soup mix  .
.  . instant rice  .  .  . white milk and chocolate milk  .  .  .  [and] a
variety of big boxes of potato chips."
Discussion
Having  carefully  reviewed  the  complaint,  the  Court
concludes  that  plaintiff's  conclusory  allegations  do  not  rise  to
the level of a constitutional violation and fail to state a claim
or  cause  of  action.     As  noted  above,  legal  conclusions  and
threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action that are
supported  by  mere  conclusory  statements  are  not  entitled  to  the
                                                                                                                          assumption  of  truth.     See  id.  at                1949.                                                                     Moreover,  plaintiff's
                                                                                                                                                                                 assertion  that  defendants  failed  to  follow  their  own  rules  and
                                                                                                                          regulations  does  not  amount  to  a                  §                                                                         1983  claim.    Cf.  Bagley  v.
Rogerson,                                                                    5  F.3d                                      325                                       (8th  Cir.   1993)                                                                     (allegation  of  state  law
4




violation,  statutory  or  decisional,  does  not,  in  itself,  state
claim under federal Constitution or  §  1983).
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  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).
IT  IS   FURTHER  ORDERED  that  plaintiff's  motion  for
appointment of counsel  [Doc.  #4] is DENIED as moot.
An  appropriate  Order  shall  accompany  this  Order  and
Memorandum.
Dated this                                                                 30th    day of September,  2009.
/s/Donald J. Stohr
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5

Download 14087.pdf

Missouri Law