Johnson v. Buckner et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1.00 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to "Clerk, United States District Court," and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for a n original proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve process on defendants Dwight Buckner, Todd Vandergriff, and Willie Ward. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Michael McGill is DISMISSED from this action without prejud ice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's official-capacity claims are DISMISSED. An Order of Partial Dismissal will be filed separately. ( Initial Partial Filing Fee due by 3/21/2016.) Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 2/19/2016. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
DEVON JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DWIGHT BUCKNER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-CV-28 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed plaintiff’s financial information, the Court assesses a partial
initial filing fee of $1.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
Standard of Review
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.
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
Plaintiff is imprisoned at the Southeast Correctional Center (“SECC”). He brings this
action against Dwight Buckner, Todd Vandergriff, Michael McGill, and Willie Ward, all of
whom are officials there, in their individual and official capacities.
Plaintiff alleges that on December 29, 2014, defendants Buckner and Ward were
informed that personal property had been stolen from several prison cells. He says that they
reviewed the camera footage and determined who stole the property. He claims that they knew
he did not steal anything, but he says they publicly accused him of being the thief in order to
place him in segregation and cause the other inmates to harm him. Plaintiff alleges that Buckner
and Ward were motivated to punish him because he is African-American.
Plaintiff asserts that defendant Vandergriff reviewed the camera footage and saw that
Buckner and Ward had falsely accused him. Vandergriff then ordered that plaintiff be returned
to the general population. Plaintiff claims that Vandergriff, Buckner, and Ward were aware that
releasing him to the general population put him in danger of being attacked by other inmates.
Plaintiff alleges that the other inmates had told prison officials that they intended to harm the
person who stole their property.
Plaintiff was assaulted the following day by several inmates. He says he suffered severe
physical injuries as a result. He complains that he was given a conduct violation for participating
in a riot. He claims that defendant McGill did not properly investigate the incident or allow him
to prepare a defense during the disciplinary hearing held that day. He was temporarily placed in
segregation.

2

Plaintiff says that another sergeant reviewed the camera footage that same day and placed
his cell mate in segregation for assaulting him. Plaintiff was released from segregation at that
point.
Plaintiff sues defendants under the Equal Protection Clause because he was treated
differently than other inmates.
Discussion
The Court finds that plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against
defendants Buckner, Vandergriff, and Ward in their individual capacities survive initial review
and should not be dismissed at this time. As a result, the Court will direct the Clerk to serve
process on these defendants.
Plaintiff’s claim against McGill is that he was denied due process during his initial
hearing regarding the assault. For the Due Process Clause to be implicated, an inmate subjected
to segregation must have been subjected to “atypical and significant hardship . . . in relation to
the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Plaintiff’s
allegations do not indicate that he has suffered the type of atypical and significant hardship
which might conceivably create a liberty interest. Id. at 485-86 (no atypical and significant
hardship where inmate spent thirty days in solitary confinement). As a result, the Court will
dismiss McGill from this action.
Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims against defendants are barred by sovereign immunity.
See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985); Murphy v. Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750, 754
(8th Cir. 1997). Therefore, these claims are dismissed as well.
Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1.00
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance
payable to “Clerk, United States District Court,” and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his
prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for an original
proceeding.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve process on defendants
Dwight Buckner, Todd Vandergriff, and Willie Ward.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Michael McGill is DISMISSED from this
action without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s official-capacity claims are DISMISSED.
An Order of Partial Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 19th day of February, 2016.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4