United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
ORDER
JEROME
T. KEARNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
Introduction
Plaintiff
Selvy is an inmate who filed a Complaint (Doc. No. 1)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but did not submit the
$400.00 filing fee or an in forma pauperis (IFP)
Motion.
Under
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a
prisoner who is permitted to file a civil action in forma
pauperis still must pay the full statutory filing fee of
$350.[1] 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The only
question is whether a prisoner will pay the entire filing fee
at the initiation of the proceeding or in installments over a
period of time. Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715,
716 (8th Cir. 1998). Even if a prisoner is without assets and
unable to pay an initial filing fee, he/she will be allowed
to proceed with his/her '1983 claims and the filing fee
will be collected by the Court in installments from the
prisoner's inmate trust account. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(4). If the prisoner's case is subsequently
dismissed for any reason, including a determination that it
is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief, the full amount of the $350 filing fee will be
collected and no portion of this filing fee will be refunded
to the prisoner.
The
PLRA requires a Plaintiff to submit a proper and complete
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, along
with calculation sheet prepared and signed by an authorized
officer of the detention center. Plaintiff Selvy must submit,
within thirty (30) days from entry of this Order, either: (1)
the statutory filing fee of $400; or (2) a proper and
complete IFP Motion, with the required calculation sheet
signed by an authorized official of the detention center at
which he is confined.
II.
Screening
The
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires federal courts
to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a
governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion
thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are
legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b).
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, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
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). But regardless whether a plaintiff is
represented or appearing pro se, the complaint must
allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim. See
Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
Additionally,
to survive a court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) screening, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009),
citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-7. The
plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability
requirement, ” but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a
complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent
with” a defendant's liability, it “stops
short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
entitlement to relief.” Id.
III.
Analysis
Plaintiff
complains Defendants failed to resolve several issues
submitted through grievances, but he does not identify those
issues, and does not include specific allegations against any
of the Defendants with respect to those issues. Therefore,
his allegations are too vague to support a constitutional
claim for relief. The Court will provide Plaintiff the
opportunity to amend his Complaint in accordance with
Fed.R.Civ.P 8(a)(2), which requires a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Plaintiff is directed to file a short
Amended Complaint which sets forth one claim (referring to
one incident) against named Defendants, which he wishes to
pursue in this case. (His other claims should be set forth in
separate lawsuits.) This Amended Complaint will render his
Original Complaint without legal effect, and will take the
place of those pleadings.[2] In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
shall specifically and clearly state the following: (1) the
name of each individual personally involved in the actions at
issue in the complaint; (2) how each individual was
personally involved in those actions; (3) how each individual
violated the Plaintiffs constitutional rights; 4) how he was
harmed; and 5) whether he was incarcerated as a pretrial
detainee. Plaintiff must set forth specific facts concerning
the allegations he has set forth including, where applicable,
dates, times and places. Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED
that:
1.
Plaintiff Selvy must submit either the $400 statutory filing
fee or an In Forma Pauperis Motion, within thirty
days of the entry date of this Order.[3]
2. In
accordance with the above instructions, Plaintiff shall file
an Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of
this Order. Failure to file an Amended Complaint or to abide
by the Court's above instructions may result in ...