Warren v. Seabaugh et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, as to defendant TimothySeabaugh, the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to be issued on the amended complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to defendants Jeff Norman,Dorothy Wright, Sandria Hutcheson, and Dwayne V. Kempker, the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the amended complaint, because it is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to this Court's differentiated case management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (standard prisoner actions). A separate order of partial dismissal shall accompany this memorandum and order. Signed by Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 5/25/2011. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
LEE VERNON WARREN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JEFF NORMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:11-CV-54-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This

matter

is

before

the

Court

upon

review

of

plaintiff's amended complaint [Doc. #8].
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may
dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis at any time if the
action is frivolous, 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.

An action is frivolous if "it

lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

Neitzke v.

An action fails to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B),
the

Court

must

construction.

give

the

complaint

the

benefit

of

a

liberal

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

The

Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the
plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless.

Denton

v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
The amended complaint
Plaintiff,

an

inmate

at

the

Southeast

Correctional

Center, seeks monetary and injunctive relief in this 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action against defendants Jeff Norman (Warden), Dorothy Wright
(Librarian),

Sandria

Hutcheson

(Librarian),

Dwayne

V.

Kempker

(Deputy Divisional Director), and Timothy Seabaugh ("C.C.A.").
Plaintiff

alleges

that,

without

any

peneological

or

security objectives, defendant Seabaugh threatened to give him a
conduct violation and place him in administrative segregation
unless and until he removed his name from a website, "Pen Pals
Behind

Bars."

Plaintiff

states

that

as

a

direct

result

of

Seabaugh's threat, and in violation of his constitutional rights to
receive

mail

and

associate

with

others,

he

wrote

a

letter

withdrawing his name from the website, which resulted in the
termination
individual.

of

his

"healthy-mail-relationship"

Plaintiff's

claims

against

Timothy

with

another

Seabaugh

are

sufficient to proceed at this time.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants Norman and Kempker were
put on notice of the problem plaintiff was having with defendant
Seabaugh and "failed to act to prevent such from continuing to
exist."

Plaintiff's claims against defendants Jeff Norman and

Dwayne Kempker will be dismissed as legally frivolous. See Boyd v.

Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995)(respondeat superior theory
inapplicable in § 1983 suits); Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314
(8th Cir. 1997)(noting that general responsibility for supervising
operations

of

prison

is

insufficient

to

establish

personal

involvement required to support liability under § 1983); Rivera v.
Goord, 119 F.Supp.2d 327, 344 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (allegations that
inmate wrote to prison officials and was ignored insufficient to
hold those officials liable under § 1983); Woods v. Goord, 1998 WL
740782,

at

*6

(S.D.N.Y.

Oct.23,

1998)

(receiving

letters

or

complaints does not render prison officials personally liable under
§ 1983); Watson v. McGinnis, 964 F.Supp. 127, 130 (S.D.N.Y.1997)
(allegations that an official ignored a prisoner's letter are
insufficient to establish liability).
Plaintiff further alleges that defendants Hutcheson and
Wright, the librarians, interfered with his right of access to the
courts when they (1) refused to allow him to enlarge or reduce the
size of legal documents on the copy machine; and (2) caused him to
miss court deadlines "for motions to be submitted to the Court of
the City of St. Louis, Missouri, concerning [his] criminal charge."
Plaintiff's allegations do not state an access-to-the-courts claim,
because he has not alleged that he suffered actual prejudice to a
nonfrivolous legal claim.

See

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-

55 (1996) (right of access to courts requires showing that inmate
had nonfrivolous legal claim actually impeded or frustrated).

As

such, the amended complaint is legally frivolous as to defendants

Dorothy Wright and Sandria Hutcheson, and these claims will be
dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, as to defendant Timothy
Seabaugh, the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to be
issued on the amended complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to defendants Jeff Norman,
Dorothy Wright, Sandria Hutcheson, and Dwayne V. Kempker, the Clerk
shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the amended
complaint, because it is legally frivolous and fails to state a
claim

upon

which

relief

may

be

granted.

See

28

U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to this Court's
differentiated case management system, this case is assigned to
Track 5B (standard prisoner actions).
A separate order of partial dismissal shall accompany
this memorandum and order.
Dated this 25th day of May, 2011

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE