Bell v. Phillips
Decision Date | 28 July 2015 |
Docket Number | WD 77464 |
Parties | Robert J. Bell, Appellant, v. Paula Phillips, et al., Respondents. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert J. Bell, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Andrew W. Blackwell and Emily A. Wales, Jefferson City, MO, for respondents.
Before Division Four: Alok Ahuja, C.J., and Lisa White Hardwick and Mark D. Pfeiffer, JJ.
Robert Bell, an inmate in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections, appeals the dismissal of his petition, which asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of access to the courts. We reverse, and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.
Bell's petition alleged that, in the grievance proceeding, “the officers said, ‘they will not provide me with the needed legal materials, (free or otherwise).’ ”
Bell's petition also alleged that, as a result of the denial of necessary postage, he had been unable to timely file his federal habeas corpus petition:
[T]he dept. of corrections refuse[s] to provide indigent inmates like myself reasonable access to legal materials like photocopies and postage “FREE OF CHARGE,” which is part of receiving reasonable access to the courts.... Due to the fact that I did not have the $5.10 to mail my Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus and the accompanying exhibits during the early months of 2010 the Court ruled that my petition was untimely.... [T]he Dept's policy denies me the first amendment right to have reasonable access to the courts. See, Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977) and Gluth v. Kansas [Kangas] , 951 F.2d 1506 [1504] (9th Cir.1991).
(Emphasis added.)
Phillips attacked Bell's court-access claim in a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion argued a single basis for dismissing Bell's claim: that “Mr. Bell does not plead any facts to suggest he has suffered actual injury, such as missing a court imposed deadline. ” (Emphasis added.)
In response to Phillips' motion, Bell filed an affidavit which reiterated that he had been denied the $5.10 in postage necessary to timely file his federal habeas corpuspetition. In reply suggestions, Phillips argued that ”(Emphasis added; footnote omitted.)
Following a hearing, the trial court granted Phillips' motion for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed Bell's petition with prejudice. The court's judgment stated that it issued its ruling “[f]or the reasons set out in the respondents' ... motion for judgment on the pleadings.” Bell appeals.
“A court's grant of judgment on the pleadings is reviewed de novo. ” Seay v. Jones, 439 S.W.3d 881, 887 (Mo.App.W.D.2014) (citation omitted).
On appeal from the trial court's grant of Respondents' motion for judgment on the pleadings, we review the allegations of Appellants' petition to determine whether the facts pleaded therein are insufficient as a matter of law. The party moving for judgment on the pleadings admits, for purposes of the motion, the truth of all well pleaded facts in the opposing party's pleadings. The position of a party moving for judgment on the pleadings is similar to that of a movant on a motion to dismiss; i.e., assuming the facts pleaded by the opposite party to be true, these facts are, nevertheless, insufficient as a matter of law. A trial court properly grants a motion for judgment on the pleadings if, from the face of the pleadings, the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
State ex rel Nixon v. Am. Tobacco Co., Inc., 34 S.W.3d 122, 134 (Mo. banc 2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).1 “The facts alleged in the petition are ... construed liberally in favor of the plaintiff,”2 and we give the plaintiff “the benefit of all reasonable inferences drawn” from the petition's allegations. Seay, 439 S.W.3d at 887 (quoting Emerson Elec. Co. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., 362 S.W.3d 7, 12 (Mo. banc 2012) ).
In this case, the circuit court stated that it was dismissing Bell's claim “[f]or the reasons set out in the respondents' ... motion for judgment on the pleadings.” Therefore, unless we can sustain the dismissal on the basis asserted in Phillips' motion, we must reverse. See In re Estate of Austin, 389 S.W.3d 168, 171 (Mo. banc 2013) ; Zinke v. Orskog, 422 S.W.3d 422, 425 (Mo.App.W.D.2013).
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that that the United States Constitution requires state prison officials to give inmates “the capability of bringing contemplated challenges to sentences or conditions of confinement before the courts.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (citing Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977) ).
Inmates undeniably enjoy a constitutional right of access to the courts and the legal system. To protect that right, prisons must provide inmates with some access to legal materials or to legal assistance so that inmates can prepare and pursue complaints, and with some ability to mail these complaints and related legal correspondence once prepared.
Myers v. Hundley, 101 F.3d 542, 544 (8th Cir.1996) ( ).
Similarly, the Missouri Supreme Court has recognized “[t]he [United States] Constitution requires that inmates be provided ... the tools needed ‘to attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and in order to challenge the conditions of their confinement.’ ” Bromwell v. Nixon, 361 S.W.3d 393, 399 (Mo. banc 2012) (quoting Casey, 518 U.S. at 355, 116 S.Ct. 2174 ). “To succeed on an ‘access to the courts' claim, [inmates] must show (1) that they were denied ‘a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the courts' and (2) that they suffered actual injury.” Id. at 400 (quoting Casey, 518 U.S. at 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174 ).
Bell's petition sought to assert a claim against Phillips under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of his constitutional right of access to the courts. “Liability under section 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights.” Mayorga v. Mo., 442 F.3d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir.1990) ). To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must “allege facts supporting any individual defendant's personal involvement or responsibility for the violations.” Ellis v. Norris, 179 F.3d 1078, 1079 (8th Cir.1999) ; see also State ex rel. Hill v. Travers, 602 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Mo.App.E.D.1980) ( ).
Phillips' motion for judgment on the pleadings contended that Bell's petition had failed to allege actual injury from any denial of access to the courts. The Missouri Supreme Court has recognized that actions which frustrate an inmate's ability to file a habeas corpus petition satisfy the actual injury requirement. In Bromwell, the Court stated that the inmates in that case had not adequately alleged actual injury “[b]ecause [they] have not pleaded that they have been unable to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus due to any or all of the ... alleged insufficiencies” in the legal resources made available to them. 361 S.W.3d at 399 ; see also id. ( ). Similarly, Casey held that inmates are entitled to the resources reasonably necessary “to attack their sentences, directly or collaterally.” 518 U.S. at 355, 116 S.Ct. 2174.
Although Phillips inaccurately claimed otherwise in the circuit court, Bell's petition expressly alleged that “[d]ue to the fact that I did not have the $5.10 to mail my Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus and the accompanying exhibits during the early months of 2010 the Court ruled that my petition was untimely.” Bell's allegation that the failure to provide him with necessary postage resulted in the dismissal of his federal habeas petition is precisely the sort of actionable injury contemplated in Casey and Bromwell....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stratman
...Co. , 212 S.W.3d 129, 132 (Mo. banc 2007). "A court's grant of judgment on the pleadings is reviewed de novo. " Bell v. Phillips , 465 S.W.3d 544, 547 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).AnalysisStratman asserts six points on appeal, each of which depends on our resoluti......
-
Smith v. State
...rules.To support his position in favor of a contrary conclusion, Movant makes two arguments. First, he relies on Bell v. Phillips, 465 S.W.3d 544 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015), for the proposition that a prison's refusal to provide funds to pursue a post-conviction case justifies relief. Bell does n......
-
Owen v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
...interpretation of the law, such "grant of judgment on the pleadings is reviewed de novo " by the appellate courts. Bell v. Phillips , 465 S.W.3d 544, 547 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (internal quotation omitted).AnalysisThe Children's Division raises two points on appeal, asserting in both that the......
- Marsh v. State