United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville
CYNTHIA R. WYRICK MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. McDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court is in receipt of a pro se prisoner's
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 2) and motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1).
review of Plaintiff's certified inmate trust account
record demonstrates that Plaintiff lacks sufficient financial
resources to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915, this motion (Doc. 1) will be
Plaintiff is an inmate in the Washington County Detention
Center, he will be ASSESSED the civil filing
fee of $350.00. The custodian of Plaintiff's inmate trust
account will be DIRECTED to submit to the
Clerk, U.S. District Court, 220 West Dept Street, Suite 200,
Greeneville, Tennessee, 37743, as an initial partial payment,
the greater of: (a) twenty percent (20%) of the average
monthly deposits to Plaintiff's inmate trust account; or
(b) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly balance in
his inmate trust account for the six-month period preceding
the filing of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) (1) (A)
and (B). Thereafter, the custodian of Plaintiff's inmate
trust account shall submit twenty percent (20%) of
Plaintiff's preceding monthly income (or income credited
to Plaintiff's trust account for the preceding month),
but only when such monthly income exceeds ten dollars
($10.00), until the full filing fee of three hundred fifty
dollars ($350.00) has been paid to the Clerk. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(b)(2) and 1914(a).
ensure compliance with this fee-collection procedure, the
Clerk will be DIRECTED to mail a copy of
this memorandum and order to the custodian of inmate accounts
at the institution where Plaintiff is now confined, and to
the Attorney General for the State of Tennessee. This order
shall be placed in Plaintiff's prison file and follow him
if he is transferred to another correctional institution. The
Clerk also will be DIRECTED to provide a
copy to the Court's financial deputy.
contends that the Washington County Detention Center lacks an
“adequate law library, ” and that Defendants
refuse him the “counsel of other inmates.” (Doc.
2, at 3-4.) He also maintains that Defendants refuse to make
copies of legal documents that he has submitted in his cases
pending before the Washington County Criminal Court.
(Id. at 4-5.) He asks the Court to award him
monetary damages for Defendants' interference in his
ability to prepare a defense against his pending criminal
charges. (Id. at 5.)
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”),
district courts must screen prisoner complaints and sua
sponte dismiss any claims that are frivolous or
malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or are against a
defendant who is immune. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Benson v.
O'Brian, 179 F.3d 1014 (6th Cir. 1999). The
dismissal standard articulated by the Supreme Court in
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and in
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)
“governs dismissals for failure state a claim under [28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A] because the
relevant statutory language tracks the language in Rule
12(b)(6).” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468,
470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus, to survive an initial review
under the PLRA, a complaint “must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570).
liberally construe pro se pleadings filed in civil
rights cases and hold them to a less stringent standard than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Allegations that give
rise to a mere possibility that a plaintiff might later
establish undisclosed facts supporting recovery are not
well-pled and do not state a plausible claim, however.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570. Further, formulaic
and conclusory recitations of the elements of a claim which
are not supported by specific facts are insufficient to state
a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 681 (2009).
order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must establish that he was deprived of a federal
right by a person acting under color of state law. Braley
v. City of Pontiac, 906 F.2d 220, 223 (6th Cir. 1990)
(“Section 1983 does not itself create any
constitutional rights; it creates a ...