MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CAROL E. JACKSON, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed plaintiff's financial information, the Court assesses a partial initial filing fee of $8.00, which is twenty percent of his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To state a claim for relief, a complaint must plead more than "legal conclusions" and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a "mere possibility of misconduct." Id. at 679. "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.
When reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. Furthermore, the Court liberally construes the allegations.
Plaintiff brings this action against the Hon. Gary Kamp, who is an Associate Circuit Judge for Missouri's 32nd Judicial Circuit in Cape Girardeau, County. He says defendant is biased against him because of his race. He claims that defendant did not give him the proper jail time credit for a probation violation and that defendant incorrectly calculated his fine. He also believes his current confinement is unlawful.
This action is legally frivolous because judges are "entitled to absolute immunity for all judicial actions that are not `taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction.'" Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)).
Furthermore, challenges to the validity of confinement are not cognizable in § 1983 cases and may only be brought in petitions for writ of habeas corpus.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.