United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND DIRECTING SERVICE
E. SCHREIER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Ronald Miner III, is an inmate at the South Dakota State
Penitentiary (SDSP) in Sioux Falls. Miner filed a pro se
civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. Docket 1; Docket 2. The court has now screened
Miner's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the
following reasons, the court grants Miner's motion to
proceed in forma pauper and dismisses his complaint in part
and directs service in part.
complaint generally concerns alleged violations of his right
to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Docket 1. While
incarcerated in the Minnehaha County Jail, Miner alleges that
he encountered problems with defendant Kurt Schaunaman.
Id. at 4. He alleges that Schaunaman ordered
correctional officers to physically and emotionally harm him.
Id. at 5. Multiple officers allegedly told Miner to
kill himself. Id. at 4. Schaunaman allegedly showed
officers how to assault Miner and get away with it.
Id. at 5. Miner alleges that while in restraints he
was assaulted by officers jumping on his arms. He also
alleges that he was repeatedly assaulted in the shower and
denied clean clothing. After months without clean clothing,
Miner developed a staph infection. Id. at 4-5.
claims he was not able to file a grievance, because he was
denied access to the kiosk machine used to file grievances.
Id. at 8. He also tried to make his complaints to
other officers with no success. Id.
court must accept the well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor
of the non-moving party. Schriener v. Quicken Loans,
Inc., 774 F.3d 442, 444 (8th Cir. 2014). Civil rights
and pro se complaints must be liberally construed.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation
omitted); Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835,
839 (8th Cir. 2004). Even with this construction, “a
pro se complaint must contain specific facts supporting its
conclusions.” Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d
1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985); Ellis v. City of
Minneapolis, 518 Fed.Appx. 502, 504 (8th Cir. 2013).
Civil rights complaints cannot be merely conclusory.
Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152 (8th Cir. 1993);
Parker v. Porter, 221 Fed.Appx. 481, 482 (8th Cir.
complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations .
. . [but] requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “If a plaintiff cannot make the
requisite showing, dismissal is appropriate.”
Abdullah v. Minnesota, 261 Fed.Appx. 926, 927 (8th
Cir. 2008); Beavers v. Lockhart, 755 F.2d 657, 663
(8th Cir. 1985). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must
screen prisoner complaints and dismiss them if they are
“(1) frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seek monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a prisoner who
“brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma
pauperis . . . shall be required to pay the full amount of a
filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The court
may, however, accept partial payment of the initial filing
fee where appropriate. Therefore, “ '[w]hen an
inmate seeks pauper status, the only issue is whether the
inmate pays the entire fee at the initiation of the
proceedings or over a period of time under an installment
plan.' “ Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d
481, 483 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997)).
initial partial filing fee that accompanies an installment
plan is calculated according to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1),