Swearengin v. Chamberlain
| Decision Date | 28 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:22-CV-403 SRW |
| Parties | RODNEY SWEARENGIN, Plaintiff, v. CHRIS CHAMBERLAIN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Rodney Swearengin, a civil detainee, for leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee. Plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel and seeks injunctive relief in the body of his complaint. After reviewing plaintiff's complaint, the Court will dismiss plaintiff's action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel and request for injunctive relief will be denied as moot.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 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 pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court accepts the well-plead facts as true White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) and liberally construes the complaint. Erickson v Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A “liberal construction” means that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, the district court should construe the plaintiff's complaint in a way that permits his or her claim to be considered within the proper legal framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). However, even pro se complaints are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980). See also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) ().
Plaintiff Rodney Swearengin is a civilly committed resident at the Sex Offender and Rehabilitation Treatment Services Center (SORTS) which is run by the Missouri Department of Mental Health in Farmington, Missouri. Plaintiff was declared a sexually violent predator under Missouri's Sexually Violent Predator Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 632.480 - 632.513, on August 27, 2014, by a unanimous jury verdict in Greene County, Missouri. In re Rodney Swearengin, No. 1031-PR00453 (31st Judicial Circuit, Green County Court).
According to Missouri Case.net, the State of Missouri's online docketing system, plaintiff was incarcerated with the Missouri Department of Corrections prior to his civil commitment. On July 31, 2006, plaintiff was charged with the class C felony of sexual misconduct with a child under the age of fourteen. Plaintiff entered a plea of guilty pursuant to an Alford plea. The charge was amended to attempted sexual misconduct with a child under fourteen. Plaintiff was sentenced to four years of imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections. See State v. Swearengin, No. 06AE-CR02902 (6th Judicial Circuit, Platte County Court).
Plaintiff brings a fifty-seven (57) page complaint before the Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights. He names sixteen (16) individuals and entities as defendants in this action: Chris Chamberlain (Security Chief); Misty Kindle (Nurse Practitioner); Stacey Gegg (Social Worker); Madison Nohren (Social Worker); George Killian (Counselor); Jared Hoskins (Security Aide); Denny Farmer (Security Aide); Jeff Cunningham (Security Aide); Jane Doe (Nurse Supervisor); John Doe (Security Aide); Dr Kimberly Bye (Psychologist); Missouri Department of Mental Health; Southeast Missouri Mental Health Center; Denise Hacker (COO); Kathy Hammond (Nurse Practitioner); and Charles McIntyre (Grievance Coordinator). Plaintiff sues the individual defendants in their individual capacities only.
Plaintiff alleges that during an approximate seven-month period, between late August of 2021 and early March of 2022, he was civilly detained at SORTS in Farmington, Missouri, when he purportedly began to suffer violations of his civil rights. He asserts that he was subjected to two “strip searches,” had his room searched multiple times, had personal property taken away, was subjected to an instance of excessive force and deliberate indifference of his medical needs, as well as a conspiracy to violate his rights and harassment. Plaintiff also alleges that his grievances at SORTS were not properly processed, and he lost liberty interests when his treatment levels were reduced. Plaintiff asserts that the supervisory employees at the Missouri Department of Mental Health unlawfully failed to promulgate policies at SORTS that protected detainees, and instill those policies in their subordinates, such that due process guidelines were not followed for detainees.
Plaintiff first claims that on August 20, 2021, he was subjected to a “strip search” by defendant Chris Chamberlain. He states that Security Chief Chamberlain came to his room, along with Nurse Misty Kindle and Social Worker Stacey Gegg, and told plaintiff that a fellow patient or staff member had indicated that plaintiff was concealing a flash/junk drive with music on it. Defendants first asked plaintiff to consent to submit to a strip search. Plaintiff claims that he initially declined to submit to the search, even though he was told by defendant Kindle that the order for the search came from an individual in “Administration” located in Jefferson City whom he identifies as, Jane Doe, and that the search would be done within the Missouri Department of Mental Health policy. Plaintiff claims in his complaint that he believes the orders came from defendants Psychologist Kimberly Bye and Chief Operating Officer Denise Hacker. However, he does not indicate how he came to believe this information.
Plaintiff asserts that after reviewing the Department of Mental Health policy, he did not agree that the search was necessary, but he was “coerced” to agree to the search by defendant Kindle, who told him he could lose his “treatment objectives” if he failed to allow the search. Plaintiff states that Kindle also told him he could be put on Total Ward Restriction, as well as lose his ability to maintain his job at SORTS if he failed to agree to the search. Thus, plaintiff submitted to the strip search in his room by Security Chief Chamberlain, Security Aide Denny Farmer, Security Aide John Doe, as well as Security Aide Jeff Cunningham. All these individuals are named defendants in this action.
During the strip search, plaintiff was asked to “bend over, spread his anus/bottom, and raise his scrotum so that defendant Chamberlain could examine plaintiff's privates. Plaintiff was not touched by defendants. Plaintiff's room was then immediately searched after his person. However, no contraband was found in either plaintiff's room or on his person. After the search, defendant Kindle told plaintiff that it would be charted that he had cooperated in the search and that nothing was found in his possession.
Plaintiff purports that on January 28, 2022, Security Aide Jared Hoskins, John Doe Security Aide, and Security Aide Tony Morgan[1] were called by an unnamed person to plaintiff's room to do a room search. Plaintiff does not indicate why these individuals were called to plaintiff's room on January 28, 2022, to do a room search.
Plaintiff states that these individuals removed the following property from his room on that Dated: (1) a paper bag with clothes; (2) CD player; (3) headphones plaintiff already had bagged up ready to go to property; (4) three zip-up bags for art pens; (5) two bags plaintiff was keeping for hand-held video games; (6) two hand-held video games plaintiff had in paper bags ready to go to property.
Plaintiff was told by defendant Hoskins that he was not allowed to keep his art pens in the zip-up bags, and that he needed to relinquish some of his hand-held video games to the property room. Plaintiff and defendant Hoskins argued about plaintiff's security level and ability to have the hand-held video games. Plaintiff also pointed out to Hoskins that the zip-up bags were on the “Basic Items List,” and should be able to be used for art supplies. Thus, on January 29, 2022, plaintiff grieved the zip-up pen bag with defendant Chamberlain, who replied that the pen bag was on the “Basic Items List.” Although it appears that defendant Chamberlain agreed with plaintiff as to the zip-up bag issue, plaintiff does not indicate whether the art supplies were eventually returned to his room. He does indicate, however, that a couple of stamps “came up missing” after some of his property was taken to the property room by defendant Hoskins on January 28, 2022.
Plaintiff complains that a total ward...
To continue reading
Request your trial