Campbell

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

RODNEY ALLEN CAMPBELL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 4:25-cv-01901-JMB

)

ETHAN CAMPANGA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on self-represented Plaintiff Rodney Allen

Campbell’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or

Costs. Based on Plaintiff’s financial information, the Court assesses an initial partial

filing fee of $1.00. On initial review, the Court dismisses this action for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Background

Plaintiff has filed 13 actions in this Court since December 8, 2025, the

majority of which have been filed against St. Charles County or the St. Charles

County Jail. See Campbell v. St. Charles Cnty. Jail, No. 4:25-cv-1784-JMB (E.D.

Mo. filed Dec. 8, 2025); Campbell v. St. Charles Cnty. Jail, No. 4:25-cv-1902-ACL

(E.D. Mo. filed Dec. 29, 2025); Campbell v. Unknown, No. 4:26-cv-24-JMD (E.D.

Mo. Jan. 5, 2026); Campbell v. St. Clair Cnty. Jail, No. 4:26-cv-65-MTS (E.D. Mo.

Mo. filed Jan. 21, 2026); Campbell v. St. Charles Cnty. Jail, No. 4:26-cv-152-HEA

(E.D. Mo. filed Feb. 2, 2026); Campbell v. Madison Cnty. Jail, No. 4:26-cv-158-

JSD (E.D. Mo. filed Feb. 2, 2026); Campbell v. St. Charles Cnty., Mo., No. 4:26-cv-

162-AGF (E.D. Mo. Feb. 2, 2026); Campbell v. Madison Cnty. Jail, No. 4:26-cv-

165-RHH (E.D. Mo. filed Feb. 2, 2026); Campbell v. Johnson, No. 4:26-cv-203-

NCC (E.D. Mo. filed Feb. 6, 2026); Campbell v. St. Charles Cnty. Jail, No. 4:26-cv-

205-SRC (E.D. Mo. filed Feb. 9, 2026); Campbell v. State of Mo., No. 4:26-cv-239-

CDP (E.D. Mo. filed Feb. 17, 2026); Campbell v. St. Charles Cnty. Jail, No. 4:26-

cv-241-ZMB (E.D. Mo. filed Feb. 17, 2026).

Initial Partial Filing Fee

A prisoner bringing a civil action is required to pay the full amount of the

filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). If the prisoner has insufficient funds in his prison

account to pay the entire fee, the Court must assess and, when funds exist, collect an

initial partial filing fee of 20% 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 must make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month’s income

credited to the prisoner’s account. Id. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of

the prisoner will forward the 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.

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). After reviewing the information contained in his application,

the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. See Henderson v. Norris,

129 F.3d 481, 484 (8th Cir. 1997) (a court may assess an initial partial filing fee “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 inmate account statement in support of his claim.

Legal Standard on Initial Review

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint

filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous or malicious, or if it fails to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff

must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility

of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

at 678. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief” is “a

context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. The Court must “accept as true the facts

alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of

action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958,

964 (8th Cir. 2016); see also Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371,

couched as a factual allegation”).

When reviewing a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court

must give it the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520 (1972). A “liberal construction” means that, “if the essence of an allegation is

discernible . . . then the district court should construe the complaint in a way that

permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal framework.”

Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Stone v. Harry, 364

F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004)). But even pro se complaints must “allege facts, which

if true, state a claim as a matter of law.” Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286

(8th Cir. 1980); see also Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15 (federal courts not required to

“assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would

have formed a stronger complaint”).

The Complaint

Plaintiff brings this prisoner civil rights action against the 11th Judicial Circuit

Court (St. Charles County) and his former criminal defense attorney, Ethan

Campanga. He alleges he is “being held hostage” by the St. Charles County Jail on

charges of first degree felony harassment. Doc. 1 at 4. He states the victim has

refused to come forward to accuse him, yet the St. Charles County Court “refuses to

drop this case.” Id. As to his claims against his former attorney, he states Campanga

appeared in court without his knowledge and had his court date continued to

him removed from the criminal case.

Plaintiff states that his confinement is causing pain and anxiety, for which he

is prescribed medication. For relief, he asks that his state court charges be dropped

and that he collect damages for his pain and suffering. He also seeks $500,000 for

his lost time.

Discussion

Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendants the

11th Judicial Circuit Court and attorney Ethan Campanga have violated his

constitutional rights in his underlying criminal prosecution pending in St. Charles

County. As to the 11th Judicial Circuit Court, state courts as entities are not

vulnerable to suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they are protected by

Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Mildfelt v. Circuit Ct. of Jackson Cnty., Mo.,

827 F.2d 343, 345 (8th Cir. 1987). Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s

complaint as to Defendant 11th Judicial Circuit Court.

As to his former criminal defense attorney, Plaintiff alleges Ethan Campanga

continued a court hearing without his knowledge.1 Defense attorneys, whether

appointed or retained, do not act under color of state law, and thus cannot be liable

1 Plaintiff and his attorney both sought his attorney’s withdrawal from the case. See State v.

Campbell, No. 2311-CR03364-01, (11th Jud. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025) (“Attorney Ethan Campagna . . .

is hereby granted leave to withdraw on attorney’s motion and Defendant’s motion.).

Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (stating that “a public defender does not

act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as

counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding”); Myers v. Vogal, 960 F.2d 750,

750 (8th Cir. 1992). For this reason, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims brought

against his attorney, Defendant Ethan Campanga.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in

District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is GRANTED. (Doc. 4)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of

$1.00 within 30 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his

remittance payable to “Clerk, United States District Court,” and to include on it: (1)

his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the

remittance is for an original proceeding.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims brought against

Defendants 11th Judicial Circuit Court and Ethan Campanga are DISMISSED

without prejudice.

An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Opinion, Memorandum and

Order.

Dated this 18 day of February, 2026.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_7-