Shelton v. Sims et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TYRON SHELTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN SIMS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:25-cv-01804 RHH
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on self-represented Plaintiff Tyron Shelton’s Application
to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. [ECF No. 3]. Having reviewed the
Application, the Court will grant the request and assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will order
Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to fully exhaust his
administrative remedies. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will be denied, without
prejudice, at this time. [ECF No. 2].
Initial Partial Filing Fee
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), a prisoner bringing a civil action in forma pauperis is
required to pay the full amount of the filing fee. If the prisoner has insufficient funds in his or her
prison account to pay the entire fee, the Court must assess and, when funds exist, collect an
initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of (1) the average monthly deposits in the
prisoner’s account, or (2) the average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the prior six-
month period. After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner is required to make
monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s
Case: 4:25-cv-01804-RHH Doc. #: 4 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of the prisoner will forward these
monthly payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the prisoner’s account exceeds
$10, until the filing fee is fully paid. Id. Even if the Court grants in forma pauperis status, a
prisoner litigant must pay the entire filing fee over time. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S.
574, 596 (1998) (The PLRA “requires all inmates to pay filing fees[.]”); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147
F.3d 715, 716 (8th Cir. 1998) (“The purpose of the Act was to require all prisoner-litigants to pay
filing fees in full[.]”).
Plaintiff has not submitted a prison account statement. As a result, the Court will require
Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484
(8th Cir. 1997) (when a prisoner is unable to provide the Court with a certified copy of his prison
account statement, the Court should assess an amount “that is reasonable, based on whatever
information the court has about the prisoner’s finances.”). If Plaintiff is unable to pay the initial
partial filing fee, he must submit a copy of his prison account statement in support of his claim.
The Complaint
Plaintiff Tyron Shelton, an inmate at St. Louis City Justice Center, filed this action under
28 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of St. Louis and a Correctional Officer at the Justice Center for
alleged civil rights violations. [ECF No. 1].
Plaintiff states in a conclusory manner that at the beginning of November of 2025, he
reported to Correctional Officer Unknown Sims that he was “in fear for his safety” at the Justice
Center due to threats from other inmates. [ECF No. 1-2]. Plaintiff does not indicate whether he
elaborated on what the threats entailed, but he claims he asked to speak to a supervisor, and
Officer Sims indicated that no supervisor was immediately available. [ECF No. 1 at 3]. Plaintiff
then asked to be moved from his cell, but Officer Sims said no, that there was nowhere to move
Case: 4:25-cv-01804-RHH Doc. #: 4 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

Plaintiff at that time. See id at 6. Plaintiff states that on November 6, 2025, he was assaulted by
several inmates, and this caused injuries to his face and neck. [ECF Nos. 1 at 4 and 1-2]. Plaintiff
does not indicate where the assault occurred at the Justice Center. He also fails to indicate if he
spoke to other Correctional Officers at the Justice Center relating to the alleged threats he
received from other inmates. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for his alleged injuries in an
amount of $2.5 million dollars.
In the section of the form Complaint titled, “Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies/Administrative Procedures,” Plaintiff indicates that he failed to file an Institutional
Resolution Request (IRR) or grievance with respect to the matters alleged in his Complaint.
Rather, he has attached a copy of an “Inmate Concern Form,” that he filed on November 8, 2025,
relating to the incident on November 6, 2025. [ECF No. 1-2]. Plaintiff admits in the Complaint
that an IRR is the first step in the grievance process at the Justice Center, but he states that
Justice Center staff often give inmates the Concern Form instead of an IRR in direct
contravention of Justice Center policies. [ECF No. 1 at 6]. Plaintiff admits that he did not receive
a response to the filing of the Concern Form, and he failed to follow up after filing the Concern
Form, i.e., he did not file an IRR or a grievance relative to the events cited in the Complaint.
[ECF No. 1 at 6-7]. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff has failed to fully exhaust his administrative
remedies with respect to his claims prior to bringing his action to this Court.
Discussion
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison
conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any
jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are
exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Moreover, pursuant to Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 733-40
Case: 4:25-cv-01804-RHH Doc. #: 4 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

(2001), exhaustion is required where prison administrative remedies are available, even if the
available administrative remedies do not provide the precise, or full, relief sought. Lyon v. Krol,
305 F.3d 806, 808 (8th Cir. 2002). Prisoners are required to fully exhaust their prison
remedies prior to filing a complaint in Federal Court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006)
(explaining proper exhaustion of remedies “means using all steps that the [prison] holds out, and
doing 	so properly (so 	that 	the 	agency 	addresses 	the 	issue 	on 	the 	merits)”) 	(citation
omitted); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (“if exhaustion was not completed
at the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory”).
Plaintiff indicates in the complaint that he failed to file an IRR or grievance regarding the
concerns in his Complaint. He asserts that he filed the Concern Form that he was given, but he
failed to file an IRR because staff at the Justice Center sometimes utilize the Concern Form instead
of an IRR to begin the grievance process. Unfortunately, even if the staff at the Justice Center are
utilizing the wrong form to begin the grievance process, Plaintiff is still responsible for pursuing
the entirety of the process, i.e., filing the next step in the process, prior to pursuing his claims in
Federal Court. He is responsible for pursuing all administrative remedies required under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act.
However, prior to dismissing this action, the Court will allow Plaintiff time to respond to
this Order to Show Cause to discuss why he failed to properly move through the administrative
process at the Justice Center before filing his lawsuit in the District Court. See Irving v. Ventura,
2020 WL 5491689 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 2, 2020) (dismissing for failure to exhaust when plaintiff
indicated on the face of the complaint that he filed a grievance only a couple of weeks before filing
his lawsuit and had not yet received a formal answer to his grievance). If Plaintiff has indeed
exhausted his administrative remedies, in his response to the Court, he must set forth the dates he
Case: 4:25-cv-01804-RHH Doc. #: 4 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

filed his IRR(s), grievance(s) and appeal(s), if any, as well as the dates he received institutional
response(s) from persons at the St. Louis City Justice Center. Plaintiff should also attach copies of
his IRRs, grievances, grievance appeals, and any written responses. If he cannot obtain copies from
the institution, Plaintiff must explain what attempts he has made to request these documents. If
Plaintiff fails to comply, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further
notice.
Motion to Appoint Counsel
Plaintiff has filed a motion to appoint counsel. [ECF No. 2]. The motion will be denied at
this time. In civil cases, a pro se litigant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to
appointed counsel. Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). See also Stevens v. Redwing,
146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (stating that “[a] pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional
right to have counsel appointed in a civil case”). Rather, a district court may appoint counsel in a
civil case if the court is “convinced that an indigent plaintiff has stated a non-frivolous claim…and
where the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the court will benefit from the
assistance of counsel.” Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018). When determining
whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant, a court considers relevant factors such as the
complexity of the case, the ability of the pro se litigant to investigate the facts, the existence of
conflicting testimony, and the ability of the pro se litigant to present his or her claim. Phillips v.
Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006).
After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not
warranted at this time. Plaintiff has demonstrated, at this point, that he can adequately present his
claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case appear to be
Case: 4:25-cv-01804-RHH Doc. #: 4 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

complex. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel, if necessary, as the
case progresses.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs [ECF No. 3] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay an initial partial filing fee of $1.00
within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff must make his remittance
payable to “Clerk, United States District Court,” and shall include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his
prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) a statement that the remittance is for an
original proceeding.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause within twenty-one (21)
days from the date of this Memorandum and Order why this action should not be dismissed
for failure to fully exhaust his prison remedies prior to filing this action. Plaintiff must include in
his show cause response the dates his IRRs, grievances and grievance appeals were denied, and
attach copies of such documents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 2] is
DENIED, without prejudice, at this time.
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of this action
without prejudice and without further notice.
Dated this 17th day of December, 2025.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01804-RHH Doc. #: 4 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>