Maurice Williams v. City of St. Louis, et al


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Steven M. Colloton and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4293609-2] motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis filed by Appellant Maurice Williams. [4348383] [15-2416]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2416 ___________________________ Maurice Williams, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant, v. City of St. Louis; Burton Barr, Chaplan, Individually and Officially; Richard Gray, Director, Individually and Officially; Melvin Diggs, Correctional Officer, Individually and Officially; Sydney Turner, Correctional Officer, Individually and Officially; Len Crenshaw, Supt., Individually and Officially; Irene Mitchell, Individually and Officially; Dale Glass, Commissioner, Individually and Officially; Unknown Irving, Correctional Officer III, Individually and Officially, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: October 16, 2015 Filed: December 21, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Appellate Case: 15-2416 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 Entry ID: 4348383 Maurice Williams, an inmate at the St. Louis City Justice Center, appeals from the district court’s1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal of his action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Following de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), we grant Williams’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and summarily affirm. We conclude that the district court properly dismissed Williams’s section 1983 claims against the city of St. Louis and the individual defendants in their official capacities because he did not allege that any city policy or custom was responsible for the violations of his rights. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985); Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-90 (1978). We also agree that his section 1983 claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities failed. As to Williams’s claim that he was kept in solitary confinement for 23-24 hours at a time for non-disciplinary reasons and was served food at unsafe temperatures, he failed to allege facts indicating that his confinement led to any substantial risk of harm or immediate danger to health, or that defendants knew of and deliberately ignored the likelihood of harm. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1044-45 (8th Cir. 2012); Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992); Ervin v. Ciccone, 557 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (8th Cir. 1977). As to his claim that he was subjected to weekly strip searches, he failed to allege facts indicating that the strip searches were exaggerated beyond what was necessary for genuine security considerations, see Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559-62 (1979); Story v. Foote, 782 F.3d 968, 971-72 (8th Cir. 2015), or that defendants conducted the searches with deliberate indifference to his health or safety, see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 836 (1994). 1 The Honorable Judge Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2Appellate Case: 15-2416 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 Entry ID: 4348383 Finally, in his amended complaint, Williams made only a conclusory allegation that he was denied a religious diet. We agree with the district court that the allegation was insufficient to state a claim under RLUIPA that was plausible on its face, as Williams did not establish a substantial burden on his religious beliefs. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); cf. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1(a); Van Wyhe v. Reisch, 581 F.3d 639, 655 (8th Cir. 2009); Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 988 (8th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -3Appellate Case: 15-2416 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 Entry ID: 4348383

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?