Windeknecht v. Mo. Dep't of Mental Health
| Decision Date | 14 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:20-CV-293 JAR,4:20-CV-293 JAR |
| Parties | LARRY E. WINDEKNECHT, Plaintiff, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court upon the amended complaint of self-represented plaintiff Larry E. Windeknecht. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff has also filed two motions for appointment of counsel and a second motion for leave to commence this action without prepayment of the required filing fees or costs. ECF Nos. 4, 8-9. Because the Court has already granted plaintiff leave to proceed without prepayment (ECF No. 5), plaintiff's second motion will be denied as moot. After reviewing plaintiff's amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As such, plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel 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 Larry E. Windeknecht is a civilly committed resident at the Southeast 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, in April 2018 by a unanimous jury verdict in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. ECF No. 7 ¶ 9; In re Larry Windeknecht, No. 16CG-PR00247 (32nd Jud. Cir., Aug. 25, 2016).
According to Missouri Case.net, the State of Missouri's online docketing system, plaintiff (Missouri inmate no. 149121) was incarcerated with the Missouri Department of Correctionsprior to his civil commitment.1 Plaintiff was sentenced to seven years after pleading guilty to attempted enticement of a child in May 2010. State v. Windeknecht, No. 09JE-CR04532 (23rd Jud. Cir., guilty plea May 21, 2010). According to plaintiff, he went directly from incarceration to detention as he "was never released from the Missouri Department of Corrections, but was instead transported to a county jail." ECF No. 7 ¶ 12.
On February 20, 2020, plaintiff filed an initial complaint in this matter, seeking relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132 - 12203(a), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("RA"). ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff alleged violations of his civil rights against three defendants: (1) Missouri Department of Mental Health ("DMH"), Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services ("SORTS"); (2) nurse Kathy Hammond; and (3) Bill Anderson. Id. at 1. Subsequently, on April 2, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. ECF No. 3.
On May 19, 2020, the Court issued an order granting plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, waiving the filing fee. ECF No. 5. In the same Order, the Court granted plaintiff's motion to amend and gave him thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint on the court-provided form and in compliance with the Court's instructions. Id.
On June 5, 2020, plaintiff filed a letter with the Court attempting to clarify that his motion to amend (ECF No. 3) was intended as a request to file a "supplemental complaint." ECF No. 6. Plaintiff explained that he just wanted to add three new defendants and not file an entirely new complaint. However, one week later, plaintiff filed a new complaint, naming additional defendants and restating all his legal allegations. ECF No. 7. Attached to that filing was a letter stating that the filing was "a complete new copy of the complaint" that includes all defendants' names in the caption. ECF No. 7-3 at 1. As such, the Court will disregard plaintiff's letter requesting to withdraw his motion to amend and consider the newly filed complaint (ECF No. 7) as the amended complaint that the Court previously granted plaintiff permission to file.
Plaintiff names six defendants in the caption of his amended complaint: (1) Missouri Department of Mental Health ("DMH"), Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services ("SORTS"); (2) Kathy Hammond (nurse); (3) Patricia Koppeis (nurse); (4) Bill Anderson; (5) Charles McIntyre (patient coordinator); and (6) Joe Easter (nursing manager).2 ECF No. 7 at 1. Plaintiff brings official capacity claims against DMH-SORTS and both individual and official capacity claims against the five individual defendants. Id. ¶ 3.
Plaintiff titles his amended complaint as an "Americans with Disabilities Act Civil Action Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132 - 12203(a)." ECF No. 7 at 1. However, in the "Jurisdictional Statement" section of the amended complaint, plaintiff specifies that his complaint is not only brought under the ADA but also under the "Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 18 U.S.C. § 791(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1311(3)." Id. ¶ 4. Although plaintiff divides his amendedcomplaint into two counts of "Equal Protection Due Process" and "Failure to Engage," the counts contain many of the same allegations and are based on the same facts. Id. at 2-8.
Under his Equal Protection count, plaintiff states that he submitted a "team request" on January 2, 2020, to meet with an on-site ADA coordinator. ECF Nos. 7 ¶ 6; 1-2. The request was referred to defendant unit manager Bill Anderson. When plaintiff did not receive a response within four days, plaintiff filed a second request on January 6, 2020. ECF Nos. 7 ¶ 7; 1-3. The second request was referred to defendant patient coordinator Charles McIntyre. Plaintiff alleges that McIntyre had not responded as of one week later (January 13, 2020). ECF No. 7 ¶ 7. Plaintiff asserts that Anderson and McIntyre failed to engage in the interactive process and that Anderson failed to hire, train, and supervise a qualified ADA coordinator. Id. ¶ 6-7.
In the second team request submitted January 6, plaintiff again asked to meet with an on-site ADA coordinator, but he also complained about a January 2, 2020, incident in which he alleges that he was denied access to the phone to make a "toll free 1-800" call. ECF Nos. 7 ¶ 8; 1-3; 1-4. Plaintiff was trying to contact a number "for a Class Action lawsuit ... filed in respect to the medication of Zantac." ECF No. 1-4 at 1. Plaintiff states that "Aids" denied his request to make the call and then sought confirmation for their denial from nursing manager Joe Easter. ECF No. 7 ¶ 8. Easter stated that the call required "team request approval." Id. Plaintiff then asked Easter for the "Whistle Blower Hot Line" number. In response, Easter "acted as if he didn't know what [plaintiff] was talking about." Id.; ECF No. 1-5. Plaintiff asserts that he has the "legal right to call any toll free 1-800 number." ECF No. 1-3 at 2. Plaintiff states that Anderson's lack of action violates his "Equal-Protection and Due Process Guarantees."3 ECF No. 7 ¶ 8. Plaintiff further asserts that nursing manager Easter failed to adequately train andsupervise defendant nurses Kathy Hammond and Patricia Koppeis, in violation of Missouri statutes pertaining to patient privacy rights and specifically, his right to reasonable access to the telephone to make and receive confidential calls. Id.
Under his failure to engage count, plaintiff states that he has numerous medical conditions, including spinal stenosis, foraminal stenosis,4 severe sciatic nerve damage, peripheral neuropathy, chronic sinusitis, COPD, allergies, spondylolysis,5 and a shoulder injury. ECF No. 7 ¶¶ 10, 16, 20. Plaintiff asserts that these medical conditions result in severe chronic pain; serious difficulty breathing; severe burning of eyes, ears, nose and throat; and frequent infections. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff notes that he spends most of his time in bed because of severe pain in both legs, feet, back, and shoulder. Id. ¶ 20.
Plaintiff alleges that he has been "denied medical care and effective treatment" for the last "four years to date" - which includes the approximate two years since he arrived at the Farmington facility in April 2018.6 ECF No. 7 ¶ 12-13. Plaintiff states that there are "supposed to be" two...
To continue reading
Request your trial