Clay v. Steele
| Decision Date | 30 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:12CV2001 CDP,4:12CV2001 CDP |
| Parties | KORY SIJUAN CLAY, Plaintiff, v. TROY STEELE, et al |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Kory Sijuan Clay (Reg. No. 516775), an inmate at Potosi Correctional Center, for leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the plaintiff does not have sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee and will assess an initial partial filing fee of $77.33. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Furthermore, after reviewing the complaint, the Court will dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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 percentof 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 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.
Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit and a certified copy of his prison account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the submission of his complaint. A review of plaintiff's account indicates an average monthly deposit of $133.58, and an average monthly balance of $386.67. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $77.33, which is 20 percent of plaintiff's average monthly balance.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis ineither law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action is malicious if it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing the named defendants and not for the purpose of vindicating a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 461-63 (E.D.N.C. 1987), aff'd 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987).
To determine whether an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must engage in a two-step inquiry. First, the Court must identify the allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950-51 (2009). These include "legal conclusions" and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements." Id. at 1949. Second, the Court must determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 1950-51. This is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 1950. The plaintiff is required to plead facts that show more than the "mere possibility of misconduct." Id. The Court must review the factual allegations in the complaint "to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief." Id. at 1951. When faced with alternative explanations for the alleged misconduct, the Court may exercise its judgment in determining whether plaintiff's conclusion is the most plausible or whether it is more likely that no misconduct occurred. Id. at 1950, 51-52.
Plaintiff, an inmate at Potosi Correctional Center ("PCC") brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights. Named as defendants are: Troy Steele (Warden, PCC); Correctional Medical Services ("CMS" or "Corizon"); Mike Miller (Classified Correctional Caseworker, PCC); Jarrod Bolin (Correctional Officer, PCC); Corey Uptegrove (Correctional Officer; PCC); Terri Rich (Correctional Officer, PCC); Orville McDonald (Correctional Officer, PCC); Jason Crawford (Correctional Officer, PCC); Unknown Discus (Correctional Officer, PCC); Teri Lawson (Functional Unit Manager, PCC); Claire Dix (Functional Unit Manager, PCC); S.L. Shawyer (Classified Correctional Caseworker, PCC); Jamie Crump (Asst. Warden, PCC); Michael Bowersox (Warden, South Central Correctional Center ("SCCC")); and Securus Technologies, Inc.
Plaintiff complains that Troy Steele, as the Warden of PCC, is "responsible directly or indirectly for the behavior and conduct of his employees." Plaintiff asserts, in a wholly conclusory manner, that defendant Steele is responsible for a long list of alleged "unlawful conduct" purportedly done by others, including: (1) "fail[ing] to take action against officers who have physically intimidated plaintiff,"sexually battered"1 plaintiff, issued plaintiff false conduct violations/rule breakage reports and made plaintiff the target of constant cell searches and body searches that have resulted in plaintiff's legal documents, court documents and legal filings being disorganized and strewn about [his] assigned cell"; (2) failing to follow "standard operating procedures" with regard to allowing inmates to inspect their property immediately after being transferred to a new MDOC facility and file grievances if the property is damaged or missing; (3) allowing officers in the Protective Custody Unit to undertake "rough" or too many body cavity searches; (4) failing to ensure his employees were providing inmates with grievance materials; (5) allowing staff in the Protective Custody Unit to "institute a hierarchy. . .with the prison inmates falsely accusing each other of minor or major claims of rule breakage. . .to help regulate bedspace in the Protective Custody Unit"; (6) allowing officers to verbally threaten and harass plaintiff; (7) telling staff members that inmates in Protective Custody and Administrative Segregation cannot have access to certain newspapers or magazines during their stay in Segregation, which plaintiff believes violates the 1st Amendment; (8) telling staff members to issue false conduct violation reports against plaintiff and hold plaintiff in a long-term isolation cell in Administrative Segregation without providing himwith a hearing, in violation of his due process rights; (9) having money removed from plaintiff's inmate account by "fraudulently charging" him for "damaging and ripping" inmate bedsheets and clothing; (10) failing to order the proper equipment and provide the "proper protein" for kosher diets for those, like plaintiff, whose religion (Al-Islam) calls for following a strict kosher diet)2; (11) limiting plaintiff's ability to purchase postage (and access to courts) by restricting him to only spending $20.00 per month while in Administrative Segregation on all personal hygiene, stationary, toiletries and postage; (12) forcing plaintiff to clean the showers in the Administrative Segregation Unit, without pay, from March through September 2012; (13) allowing staff in the Protective Custody Unit to subject plaintiff to "hardship, intimidation and false claims of disruptive conduct/behavior."; (14) allowing staff in the Protective Custody Unit to "force plaintiff to remove inmates (who are plaintiff's enemy) off his institutional enemy list. . ."3; and (15) allowing plaintiff to be verbally "targeted for racialintimidation4, threats, denial of grievance procedure, sexual harassment and battery, bias treatment and false accusations by Michael Miller and Teri Lawson."
Plaintiff states that since 2007, he has suffered numbness in his left leg, toes arm and fingers. He states that occasionally he has gone to the health unit at the various prisons in which he has been housed - South Central Correctional Center, Eastern Reception, Diagnostic Correctional Center and PCC - and he claims that he has complained of "heart/chest" pain. He states that after several exams by unnamed doctors employed by CMS/Corizon, he has been told that he is suffering either "a minor ailment, poor/lack of exercise activities or that it's more mental than physical." However, plaintiff states that despite being told by medical providers to the contrary, he believes that he has been suffering from a blood clot these past six years and that Corizon, Inc. has been deliberately indifferently to his serious medical needs.5
Plaintiff states that defendant Miller, caseworker in the Protective Custody Unit at PCC, verbally threatened him in March of 2012, relating to a grievance plaintiff filed seeking reimbursement for damaged property. Plaintiff states that he was told by defendant Miller that if he did not drop the grievance he would risk being placed back in Administrative Segregation and the loss of new property. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Miller later denied him access to file additional grievance forms, telling him that he was filing way too many forms.
Plaintiff claims that defendant Miller required plaintiff to work a "dorm job" cleaning showers during his stay in Protective Custody. Plaintiff complains that he was never paid for this work even though "it was a premium job pay slot for inmates."
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Miller did not intervene when other inmates who had been in the Protective Custody Unit for a longer time verbally harassed and intimidated him. He claims that defendant Miller also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Russell, Case No. 4:13CV00255 AGF
...nothing more than a formulaic recitation of the elements" of a constitutional claim). See also Clay v. Steele, No. 4:12CV2001 CDP, 2013 WL 5442792, at *2, *4-8, *9-10 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 30, 2013) (dismissing claims against supervisory defendants because plaintiff's allegations that these defen......