United States District Court, D. Montana, Great Falls Division
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jeremiah C. Lynch United States Magistrate Judge.
Charles Henry Pinner filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis (Doc. 1) and a proposed Complaint alleging
irregularities in his state criminal
proceedings. (Doc. 2). The motion to proceed in forma
pauperis will be granted but the Complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted and should be
Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis
filed his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and submitted
an account statement sufficient to make the showing required
by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a). (Docs. 1 &1-1). The request
to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
he is incarcerated, Pinner must pay the statutory filing fee
of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Pinner submitted an
account statement showing an inability to pay that fee;
therefore, the initial partial filing fee is waived, and he
may proceed with the case. See Bruce v. Samuels, 136
S.Ct. 627, 629 (2Ol6)("the initial partial filing fee
may not be exacted if the prisoner has no means to pay it,
§ 1915(b)(4)"). Pinner will be required to pay the
fee in installments and make monthly payments of 20% of the
preceding month's income credited to his prison trust
account. The percentage is set by statute and cannot be
altered. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Pinner must make these
monthly filing-fee payments simultaneously with the payments
required in any other cases he has filed. Id. By
separate order, the Court will direct the facility where
Pinner is held to forward payments from his account to the
Clerk of Court each time the account balance exceeds $10.00,
until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. §
is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis so the Court must
review his Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915,
1915A. Sections l9l5A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B) require the Court
to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis and/or by a
prisoner against a governmental defendant before it is served
if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
complaint is malicious if not pleaded in good faith.
Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46
(1915). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted if a plaintiff fails to allege the
"grounds" of his "entitlement to relief."
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (quotation omitted).
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a
complaint "that states a claim for relief must contain
... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
[plaintiff] is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). In order to satisfy the requirements in Rule 8 a
complaint's allegations must cross "the line from
conceivable to plausible." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009). There is a two-step procedure to
determine whether a complaint's allegations cross that
line. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556; Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662.
First, the Court must identify "the allegations in the
complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of
truth." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 680. Factual allegations
are not entitled to the assumption of truth if they are
"merely consistent with liability," or "amount
to nothing more than a 'formulaic recitation of the
elements' of a constitutional" claim. Id.
at 679, 681. A complaint stops short of the line between
probability and the possibility of relief where the facts
pled are merely consistent with a defendant's liability.
Id. at 678.
the Court must determine whether the complaint states a
"plausible" claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
679. A claim is "plausible" if the factual
allegations, which are accepted as true, "allow[ ] the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678.
This inquiry is "a context-specific task that requires
the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
common sense." Id. at 679 (citation omitted).
If the factual allegations, which are accepted as true,
"do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it
has not "show[n]"-"that the pleader is
entitled to relief." Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P.
document filed pro se is 'to be liberally construed,'
and 'a, pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded,
must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Erickson v.
Pardu, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc.
8(e) ("Pleadings must be construed so as to do