Richman v. Wallace
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 24 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff John A. Richman, 25 MOTION for Declaratory Judgment filed by Plaintiff John A. Richman. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Wallace shall have thirty (30) days to respond to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and for declaratory judgment, which this Court interprets as a "stay put" order, [Doc. #24 and #25]. Defendant's response shall be in accordance with the requirements set forth in this Memorandum and Order. Response to Court due by 12/3/2015. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 11/3/15. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JOHN A. RICHMAN,
No. 1:15CV63 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction and for declaratory
judgment. [Doc. #24 and #25]. The claim, for a “stay put order” at Southeast Correctional
Center (“SECC”), is the same in both of plaintiff’s motions.
Plaintiff, an inmate at SECC, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting a
violation of his civil rights. Named as the sole defendant in this action is Ian Wallace, Warden of
SECC. Plaintiff brings this action against defendant in his official capacity, and he seeks
injunctive relief with regard to this policy.
In his second amended complaint against defendant Wallace, plaintiff asserts that he has
a watch that needs a new battery, but if he sends it out to have it fixed, it will be taken from him
pursuant to SECC “policy” 22-1.1, that plaintiff states has been implemented and enforced by
Warden Wallace. Plaintiff believes that the policy allows staff at SECC to deprive inmates of
their lawfully purchased property without the benefit of due process, in violation of the 14th
Plaintiff’s Request for Preliminary Injunction
In his motions for injunction, plaintiff requests that the Court “block” defendant Wallace
from transferring him to another prison during this litigation. As “evidence” of his upcoming
transfer, plaintiff has attached a “classification hearing form” to his request, dated September 29,
2015, indicating that he will be transferred to another prison at some date in the near future. The
exact language of the MDOC form states, “safety for protective custody status until pending
transfer is completed.”
Plaintiff asserts in his motions before this Court that he believes that the transfer orders
were started immediately after he filed the instant lawsuit against defendant Wallace as
retaliation for the present action.
Plaintiff states that “defendant Wallace has sought to
hinder/deny the plaintiff his 14th Amendment due process rights by putting the plaintiff in for
transfer after being notified of the plaintiff’s civil claim versus the defendant, and plaintiff
asserts that the defendant Ian Wallace is deliberately stalling until such time as the plaintiff is
transferred to avoid responding to the plaintiff’s civil claims versus the defendant.”
A retaliatory transfer would be a First Amendment violation, not a due process violation,
if that in fact, were to be proven by plaintiff in this case. These allegations are, in fact, serious
and troublesome, given the facts in this matter.
Thus, the Court requests that defendant Wallace respond to plaintiff’s allegations in his
pending motions for preliminary injunction. Defendant should specifically address when the
transfer orders were initiated as to plaintiff and provide evidence of the same. Defendant should
also indicate the reasons for said transfer, and provide reasonable evidence as to why such a
transfer was necessary.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Wallace shall have thirty (30) days to
respond to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and for declaratory judgment, which this
Court interprets as a “stay put” order, [Doc. #24 and #25]. Defendant’s response shall be in
accordance with the requirements set forth in this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 3rd day of November, 2015.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?