Stevens v. Shewmaker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOSHUA LAKE STEVENS, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 4:25-CV-01618 RWS
)
MICHAEL SHEWMAKER, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is self-represented Petitioner Joshua Steven’s application for writ of
habeas corpus, as well as his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. [ECF Nos. 1, 2].
Joshua Stevens is currently incarcerated at the South Central Correctional Center (SCCC) in
Licking, Missouri. As discussed below, the Court has reviewed Steven’s filings and believes that
this case, although styled as a habeas corpus action, is best interpreted as a civil rights case, brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To correct this pleading deficiency, the Court will deny petitioner’s
request to proceed in forma pauperis in a habeas action and direct petitioner to file an amended
complaint on the Court-provided Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint form. Also, the Court will order
petitioner to submit an Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs in a § 1983
action, as well as a certified prison account. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel will
be denied, without prejudice. [ECF No. 3].
The Petition
On October 30, 2025, petitioner filed correspondence titled, “Informal Writ of Habeas
Corpus.” [ECF No. 1]. In his correspondence he states that his First Amendment rights have been
violated, most recently at Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Center (FRDC) in Fulton, Missouri,
Case: 4:25-cv-01618-RWS Doc. #: 4 Filed: 11/04/25 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
where staff “repetitively refused to send [his] mail to the President of the United States.” Id. at 1.
Petitioner asserts that he is allowed to redress his case because he was “not arrested at that
location,” and he claims that this is his “fifth attempt to contact” the Court by mail. Id. at 1-2.
Petitioner states that upon attempting to write to the President, some of his legal work was
taken from him and he was thrown in the “hole.” As noted above, petitioner is currently
incarcerated at SCCC. It is not readily apparent how his current place of incarceration effects his
civil rights claims in this action. Petitioner has not included a claim for relief.
Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
At the same time as he filed his petition, petitioner submitted a form Motion to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis and Affidavit in Support – Habeas Cases. [ECF No. 2]. On that form, petitioner
states that he is not employed, and he was last employed in August of 2023.
Under the Court’s Local Rule 2.05(A), the Court may require the submission of additional
information when in forma pauperis status is sought from the Court. For example, the Court’s form
Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs – which is usually submitted by
prisoner plaintiffs filing civil rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – states that if a prisoner
is incarcerated and he has a prison account at the institution at which he is being held, he is required
to submit a certified prison account statement with his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. This
prison account statement is needed by the Court to calculate a prisoner’s initial partial filing fee
amount. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
The Court will deny petitioner’s current motion to proceed in forma pauperis brought in
his habeas case without prejudice and require petitioner to submit an Application to Proceed
without Prepayment of Fees or Costs in a § 1983 action if he wishes to pursue proceeding as a
pauper. He will also be required to submit his prison account statement from SCCC showing his
Case: 4:25-cv-01618-RWS Doc. #: 4 Filed: 11/04/25 Page: 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
prison account for the six months preceding the filing of the current action. If petitioner chooses
instead to pay the full filing fee in this action, he will be required to pay $405.
Discussion
Both the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and the civil rights statute, 42
U.S.C. § 1983, provide access to a federal forum for claims of unconstitutional treatment at the
hands of state officials. But these statutes differ in both scope and operation.
Generally, a prisoner’s challenge to the validity of his confinement or to matters affecting
its duration falls within the province of habeas corpus and, therefore, must be brought pursuant to
§ 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). On the other hand, challenges involving
the circumstances of confinement, or how one ended up in confinement, may be presented in a
§ 1983 action. Often, the Court looks to the relief requested by a prisoner to see what type of action
he is seeking. If a prisoner is seeking money damages for civil rights violations relating to his
conditions of confinement, the case is most likely a § 1983 action. However, if prisoner is seeking
to expunge or vacate his conviction, the action is most likely one brought pursuant to habeas
corpus, or § 2254.
In this case, petitioner does not state what relief he seeks in filing this matter. However, he
is clearly complaining about the circumstances or conditions of confinement when he states that
he is being denied access to the courts and his legal materials. He does not challenge the validity
or duration of his confinement. As such, this matter is more properly brought as a civil rights
action.
The Court will order petitioner to amend his complaint on a court-provided Prisoner Civil
Rights Complaint Form and, assuming he maintains an account at SCCC, produce a certified
prisoner account statement. After petitioner complies with the aforementioned, he will be assessed
Case: 4:25-cv-01618-RWS Doc. #: 4 Filed: 11/04/25 Page: 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
an initial partial filing fee based on his ability to pay a portion of the filing fee and this case will
be reviewed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for frivolousness, maliciousness, and for failure to state
a claim.
Petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file his amended
complaint. He is warned that the filing of an amended complaint completely replaces the original
complaint, and so it must include all claims he wishes to bring. See In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost
Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) (“It is well-established that an amended
complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal
effect”). Any claims from the original complaint that are not included in the amended complaint
will be deemed abandoned and will not be considered. Id. If petitioner fails to file his amended
complaint within thirty (30) days, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without
further notice.
Motion for Appointment of Counsel
Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. [ECF No. 3]. 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 [prisoner] 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,
Case: 4:25-cv-01618-RWS Doc. #: 4 Filed: 11/04/25 Page: 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
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. Petitioner 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
complex. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case
progresses.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this
habeas action [ECF No. 2] is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to mail to petitioner a copy of the
Court’s Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint form and an Application to Proceed without Prepayment
of Fees or Costs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall file an amended complaint on the
Court-provided form within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order,
petitioner shall either pay the full filing fee of $405 or file a completed Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs along with a certified copy of his prison account
statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel [ECF
No. 3] is DENIED at this time.
Case: 4:25-cv-01618-RWS Doc. #: 4 Filed: 11/04/25 Page: 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner fails to comply with this Order, the Court
will dismiss this action without prejudice.
Dated this 4th day of November, 2025.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01618-RWS Doc. #: 4 Filed: 11/04/25 Page: 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>