McVaugh v. Butler County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to be issued on the amended complaint as to defendants Brandon Lowe and Wade Dare, in their individual capacities. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Br andon Lowe and Wade Dare, in their individual capacities, shall file a responsive pleading directed to plaintiff's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, as set forth in the amended complaint, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil P rocedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Brandon Lowe and Wade Dare, as set forth in the amended complaint [Doc. #9], are DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court's differentiated case management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (standard prisoner actions). Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 3/12/13. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

RYAN McVAUGH,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON LOWE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-CV-6-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of plaintiff's amended complaint
[Doc. #9].1 For the reasons stated below, the Court will (1) order defendants Brandon
Lowe and Wade Dare, in their individual capacities, to file a responsive pleading to
plaintiff's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, as set forth in the amended
complaint, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2)
dismiss, without prejudice, plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against both
defendants.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a complaint

On February 12, 2013, this Court instructed plaintiff to file an amended
complaint [Doc. #7].
1

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 a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 461-63
(E.D.N.C. 1987), aff'd 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987). 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).
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
2

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.
Moreover, in reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court
must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction. 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
In his amended complaint, plaintiff, an inmate at the Moberly Correctional
Center, seeks actual and punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
defendants Brandon Lowe and Wade Dare. Defendants are law enforcement officers
with the Butler County Sheriff's Department. Plaintiff is suing defendants in their
individual capacities.
Plaintiff’s allegations arise out of his detention at the Butler County Jail on or
about March 4, 2012. Plaintiff states that he was a pretrial detainee at the time, given
3

that he was merely in custody, without a warrant.

Plaintiff claims that at

approximately 1:48 a.m., defendants "rousted [him] out of bed . . . solely to disorient,
confuse and frustrate [him]," and proceeded to interrogate him "in an interview room
where the video surveillance was not working." Plaintiff alleges that, without
provocation on his part, defendants Lowe and Dare violated his Fourth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights by “physically attacking, assaulting and striking [him]
while he was handcuffed,” in an effort to "beat 'the truth' out of [him]" with regard
to a convenience store robbery or burglary in which he was not involved and in
regard to which he has never been charged.2 Plaintiff further alleges that as a result
of defendants' unlawful, intentional, and malicious abuse, he suffered both physical
and emotional injuries, for which he was denied medical care.
Discussion
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), the Court may require any defendant to
reply to a complaint brought by a prisoner pursuant to § 1983 or any other federal law
if it finds that the plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits. A

Plaintiff states under Count I of the amended complaint, "COMES NOW
Plaintiff and for his first cause of action against Defendant Lowe, states further as
follows . . ." The Court will liberally construe Count I as having been brought
against both Brandon Lowe and Wade Dare. Plaintiff proceeds to set forth his
allegations against both defendants, and it is clear to the Court that in Count I,
plaintiff is asserting claims against both Lowe and Dare.
2

4

review of the amended complaint indicates that plaintiff has sufficiently asserted
Fourth Amendment claims alleging use of excessive force during an interrogation, as
well as Fourteenth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference, excessive use of
force, and denial of medical care. Because plaintiff was a pretrial detainee when the
alleged constitutional violations occurred, his claims should be analyzed under the
Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, rather than the Eighth Amendment.
See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n. 16 (1979). This Court notes that, while
acknowledging that it "has yet to apply a clear standard for pretrial detainees,"
Vaughn v. Green County, 438 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2006), the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals has "repeatedly applied the deliberate indifference standard of Estelle to
pretrial detainee claims that prison officials unconstitutionally ignored a serious
medical need or failed to protect the detainee from a serious risk of harm." Butler v.
Fletcher, 465 F.3d 340, 344 (8th Cir. 2006). As such, the Court will dismiss
plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), and will order defendants Lowe and Dare to reply to plaintiff's Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendment claims set forth in the amended complaint.
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause
process to be issued on the amended complaint as to defendants Brandon Lowe and
5

Wade Dare, in their individual capacities.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Brandon Lowe and Wade Dare,
in their individual capacities, shall file a responsive pleading directed to plaintiff’s
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, as set forth in the amended complaint,
pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims
against defendants Brandon Lowe and Wade Dare, as set forth in the amended
complaint [Doc. #9], are DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court's differentiated case
management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (standard prisoner actions).
A separate Order of Partial Dismissal of Claims will accompany this
Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 12th day of March, 2013.

_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6