Sutton v. Dunklin County et al, No. 1:2019cv00106 - Document 33 (E.D. Mo. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mail to plaintiff a copy of the complaint, attachments to the complaint, and the docket sheet. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mai l to plaintiff a blank Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 form. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent plaintiff seeks any other relief in his motion [ECF No. 28], it is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 08/24/20. (CMH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sutton v. Dunklin County et al Doc. 33 Case: 1:19-cv-00106-HEA Doc. #: 33 Filed: 08/24/20 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 169 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION RONALD LAMONT SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. DUNKLIN COUNTY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:19-CV-106 HEA OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This closed matter is before the Court on the motion of self-represented plaintiff Ronald Lamont Sutton (Missouri inmate registration number 521309) for a “Memorandum and Order.” Plaintiff filed this same motion in multiple cases before this Court. He is currently incarcerated at the Northeast Correctional Center in Bowling Green, Missouri. Plaintiff alleges that the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) has discriminated and harassed him by misplacing his legal papers with “evil intent,” because he has a pending court action against them in the Court of Appeals. He requests copies of the “complaint and all evidence” filed in multiple cases in this Court, including this closed case, and a copy of the docket sheet. Plaintiff also asks that the Clerk of Court send him §1983 forms because he has “more (“lawsuits”) to file[] in the United States District Court.” Plaintiff also claims that someone at the MDOC is “messing” with his food and holding him in the “hole” in retaliation for the lawsuits he has filed. Id. A review of the docket sheet in this matter reveals that plaintiff has already requested and been sent by the Clerk of Court six (6) copies of the docket sheet and several copies of pleadings in this matter. However, because plaintiff alleges that his legal papers have been misplaced, the Dockets.Justia.com Case: 1:19-cv-00106-HEA Doc. #: 33 Filed: 08/24/20 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 170 Court will direct the Clerk of Court to send him a copy of the complaint, attachments to the complaint, and the docket sheet again. Plaintiff also requests a copy of the Court’s “Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983” form. The Court will direct the Clerk of Court to also send this form complaint to plaintiff. However, the Court reminds plaintiff that this Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals have found plaintiff to be a “three-striker” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Sutton v. Dunklin County, No. 1:19-CV-106-HEA. As such, he must either pay the full filing fee when filing a new complaint, or if he seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, he must demonstrate that he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Higgins v. Carpenter, 258 F.3d 797, 800 (8th Cir. 2001). To the extent that plaintiff seeks any other relief in his motion, it is denied. Any legal claims that plaintiff wishes to assert against the MDOC concerning his conditions of incarceration must be made in a new § 1983 filed complaint. The complaint in this matter did not name MDOC as a defendant and did not involve allegations concerning conditions of incarceration. Regardless, this case has been dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mail to plaintiff a copy of the complaint, attachments to the complaint, and the docket sheet. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mail to plaintiff a blank “Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983” form. 2 Case: 1:19-cv-00106-HEA Doc. #: 33 Filed: 08/24/20 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 171 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent plaintiff seeks any other relief in his motion [ECF No. 28], it is DENIED. Dated this 24th day of August, 2020. HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
