Ingrassia v. Schafer
| Decision Date | 08 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:11CV2062 AGF,4:11CV2062 AGF |
| Parties | THOMAS J. INGRASSIA, Plaintiff, v. KEITH SCHAFER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Thomas Ingrassia, a civil detainee at Missouri's Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services ("SORTS") facility, for leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee. Having reviewed Plaintiff's financial affidavit, the Court will grant the motion. Furthermore, after reviewing the complaint, the Court will partially dismiss the complaint and will order the Clerk to issue process or cause process to be issued on the non-frivolous portions of the complaint.
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 in either 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 acognizable 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 brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. Named as Defendants are Keith Schafer (Director, Missouri Department of Mental Health ("MDMH")), Felix Vincenz (Chief Operating Officer, Division of Comprehensive Psychiatric Services, MDMH), Julie Inman (Regional Executive Officer, MDMH), Alan Blake (Chief OperatingOfficer, SORTS), Jay Englehart (Psychiatrist, SORTS), Davinder Hayreh (same), Unknown Kim (same), Perry Bramhall (same), Keith Wilkey (community surgeon), Bob Wills (Chief Nursing Executive, SORTS), Gabriel Crawford (Registered Nurse, SORTS), Joe Easter (same), Marybeth Rowe (same), Tamra Archambo (same), Susan Kraemer (same), Ron Moore (same), Penny Portel (same), Kaylynn Reed (same), Ron Scharer (same), David Easter, Sr. (Security Officer, SORTS), Eric Miller (same), Evan Miller (same), Kristina Bender (Unit Program Supervisor, SORTS), Mike Basler (Security Aide, SORTS), Gary Bennett (same), Mark Brown (same), Chris Chamberlain (same), Andrew Cole (same), Wayne Cook (same), Tony Crabtree (same), Robert Dolan (same), Eric Edgar (same), Brian Gillespie (same), Jacob Hays (same), John Hooker (same), Brian Jones (same), Kaleb Juliette (same), Linda Knox (same), Neil Koenig (same), Larry Major (same), Jeff Miller (same), Chuck Parmley (same), Rodney Rangel (same), Chris Robert (same), Darrin Sheets (same), Brian Smith (same), Connie Smith (same), Micah Stewart (same), Michah Stewart (same), Ben Thurman (same), Jason Vinson (same), Bruce Weeks (same), Brenda Swift (Facility Grievance Coordinator, SORTS), and several John Does. Defendants Schafer, Vincenz, and Inman are sued in their official capacities only. All other Defendants are sued in their official and individual capacities.
In 1979, Petitioner pled guilty to four instances of rape. See Ingrassia v. State, 103 S.W.3d 117, 118 n. 2 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). In 1999, after Petitioner was released from prison, the State of Missouri filed a petition alleging that Petitioner met the definition of a sexually violent predator ("SVP") under Missouri's Sexually Violent Predator Act, Mo. Rev.Stat. §§ 632.480 - 632.513. Id. A jury found Petitioner to be an SVP, and in 2001 the court entered an order committing Petitioner to the custody of the Missouri Department of Mental Health for treatment. Id. at 119.
Petitioner subsequently escaped from the facility now known as SORTS.1 Id. Petitioner escaped by cutting through his window, climbing two stories down to the ground on tied-together bed sheets, and cutting through three fences. See State of Missouri's appellate brief in Ingrassia v. State, 252 S.W.3d 225, 2008 WL 1780284. Petitioner absconded to Florida where he lived under an assumed name and got married. Id. A little over two years later, Petitioner was apprehended by Florida law enforcement and was returned to Missouri. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he ruptured a disc in his lumbar spine on May 23, 2008, at which time he was imprisoned in a Missouri Department of Corrections institution on a felony property damage conviction he received as a result of cutting through the fences surrounding SORTS. On August 8, 2008, Plaintiff says, he was transferred to SORTS, where he was placed on "Special Precautions-Visual one-to-one" status as a result of his previous escape. Under these conditions, Plaintiff maintains, SORTS employees maintain visual contact with him twenty-four hours per day to prevent another escape.
Plaintiff claims that he told SORTS officials about his back problems on arrival. According to Plaintiff, on September 4, 2008, Defendants Bennet, David Easter, Sr., and two other SORTS employees transported Plaintiff to Defendant Wilkey's clinic for a surgery consultation. Plaintiff says that shortly after he arrived Wilkey went through his file and noted that Plaintiff had been convicted of rape and had escaped from SORTS. Plaintiff asserts that Wilkey then said to him, "If you f--- with me, you're out of here." Plaintiff claims that Wilkey then performed an examination, and after he performed the examination he recommended surgery. Plaintiff says he asked Wilkey if weight lifting and range of motion therapy would help him rehabilitate after surgery, and Plaintiff maintains that Wilkey replied, "Absolutely."
Plaintiff avers that on October 22, 2008 he was transported to Wilkey's clinic for surgery. Plaintiff says Wilkey sent him back to SORTS after the surgery was complete.
Plaintiff alleges that a few days after the surgery Defendant Bennett told him that Wilkey had "manipulated the surgery to ensure that Plaintiff 'would never escape again.'"
Plaintiff says that he was taken back to Wilkey's office on November 4, 2008, for follow-up. According to Plaintiff, Wilkey told Plaintiff that he "cut out both sides of the ruptured disk, which was his explanation as to why Plaintiff's left leg was tingling, numb, weak, and painful." Plaintiff claims that Wilkey told him the tingling and numbness would go away in a few weeks. Plaintiff says he asked Wilkey if weight training would help. Plaintiff asserts that Wilkey asked Bennett if Plaintiff was allowed to use the weights, andBennett told Wilkey "no." Plaintiff states that Wilkey then told Plaintiff he would not order weight training because it conflicted with the rules at SORTS.
Plaintiff asserts that on November 15, 2008, Defendant Scharer was informed that Plaintiff was hiding a "small cup" of Vaseline in his sock. Scharer, says Plaintiff, then ordered that Plaintiff be held down and searched. Plaintiff says that Defendants Koenig, Basler, Gillespie, Rangel, Hooker, Evan Miller, David Easter, Sr., and Jones forced him to the ground and held him in a "spread eagle position." Plaintiff alleges that Basler held Plaintiff to the floor by placing his knee on Plaintiff's lumbar spine, directly on the surgical site. Plaintiff maintains that his back was injured during the incident. Plaintiff believes that Scharer's failure to protect him was a cause of his injury.
Plaintiff claims that he was taken to see Wilkey on December 16, 2008, because he had been complaining of pain, tingling, numbness, and weakness. Plaintiff says he complained about a protruding bone in his back, but he says Wilkey told him it was normal. Plaintiff asserts that he again asked for an order to do weight lifting for rehabilitation but that Wilkey again refused.
Plaintiff states that on December 17, 2008, he asked Defendant Bramhall for an order to do weight lifting, and he says Bramhall also refused.
Plaintiff says he was taken back to Wilkey's office on March 17, 2009. Plaintiff asserts that Wilkey told Plaintiff that there was nothing more he could do for Plaintiff's back and that Plaintiff was released with no restrictions. Plaintiff states that he asked for a weight training order again, and he says that Wilkey then asked him about his behavior problemsat SORTS. Plaintiff claims that Defendant David Easter, Sr., told Wilkey that there was a color system at SORTS, classifying residents as red, yellow, blue, or green level. David Easter, Sr., told Wilkey that Plaintiff was a red level (high risk) resident, and he told Wilkey that red level residents are not permitted to use the weights. Plaintiff alleges that Wilkey then told Plaintiff that he would not order weight training because he would not get involved with Plaintiff's behavior problems at SORTS.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial