Richman v. Wallace

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process on plaintiff's equal protection claim for injunctive relief against the Missouri Department of Corrections through the Court's waiver of service agreement with t he Missouri Attorney General's Office.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant the Missouri Department of Corrections shall reply to plaintiffs claims within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file his prison account statement [Doc. #43] is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 9/8/16. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
JOHN A. RICHMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MISSOURI DEPT. OF CORR.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15CV63 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a prisoner at Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center
(“ERDCC”), has filed his third amended complaint in this action. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e),
the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious,
or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. After reviewing the third amended
complaint, the Court will issue process on plaintiff’s equal protection claim against defendant the
Missouri Department of Corrections.
Standard
To state a claim for relief under § 1983, 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.
The Complaint
In his third amended complaint against defendant MDOC, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
for a state-wide policy that plaintiff believes denies him equal protection under the 14th
Amendment. Plaintiff claims that MDOC policy IS22-1.1, a policy implemented and enforced
by MDOC prison wardens across the state, denies he and others like him, property paid for each
inmate at the prison commissary and in essence gives each inmate a “double punishment” after
that inmate is given a prison violation.
In his third amended complaint, plaintiff states that inmates who own “grandfathered
property” as defined by the policy, but who have never received: (1) conduct violations; (2)
transfers for negative behavior; (3) custody elevations due to accumulations for CDVs; or (4)
violations for being placed in administrative segregation, do not lose their “grandfathered
property” when it is broken and they have to send it outside the prison to have it fixed.
However, those who have these negative accumulations on their records and have broken
“grandfathered property” do lose their “grandfathered property” if it is broken and needs to be
fixed. Plaintiff calls this a “double punishment” and a restriction on his right to property.
Plaintiff asserts that this treatment under policy IS22-1.1 bears no rational relationship to any
penological interest.
Discussion
In order to proceed with an equal protection claim, plaintiff, who is not a member of a
suspect class, must allege that he has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly
situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. See Village of

2

Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); Brown v. Kempker, 55 Fed.Appx 388 (8th Cir.
2002).
The Court will order process on the third amended complaint at this time. Service shall
be effectuated against MDOC by the waiver agreement maintained with the Attorney General’s
Office.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process on plaintiff’s equal
protection claim for injunctive relief against the Missouri Department of Corrections through the
Court’s waiver of service agreement with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant the Missouri Department of Corrections
shall reply to plaintiff’s claims within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule
12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file his
prison account statement [Doc. #43] is DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated this 8th day of September, 2016.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3