Sargent v. Long et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Third Amended Motion to Amend Complaint is GRANTED. [Doc. 25.] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file Document 25 and its attachments [Doc. 25-1] as Plaintiffs Second Amende d Complaint, hereby amended by interlineation to state Second Amended Complaint.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Amend Case Management Order is GRANTED. [Doc. 26.] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Case Management Order of October 11, 2017 is AMENDED as follows( Discovery Completion due by 8/10/2018., Dispositive Motions due by 9/20/2018.). Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 6/22/18. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
VINCENT E. SARGENT,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVE LONG, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:17-CV-12 NAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Third Amended Motion to Amend
Complaint. [Doc. 25.] Defendants did not respond and the time to do so has now passed.
Plaintiff’s motion is timely filed. For the following reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s
motion.
Standard of Review
The Court should freely give leave to amend a pleading when justice so requires. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Parties do not have an absolute right to amend their pleadings even under this
liberal standard. Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 715 (8th Cir. 2008). “A
district court appropriately denies the movant leave to amend if there are compelling reasons
such as undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or futility of the
amendment.” Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a claim for relief must
contain a short and plain statement that demonstrates grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought. The pleading
1

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). [Doc. 13.]

standard does not require detailed factual allegations, “but it demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do.” Id. Amendments to a complaint filed in forma pauperis must also survive
frivolity review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
Discussion
Sargent filed his original complaint on January 17, 2017. [Doc. 1.] The Court ordered
Sargent to file an amended complaint on a court ordered form, which he completed on February
21, 2017. [Doc. 6.] On August 4, 2017, the Court dismissed some of the claims in the first
amended complaint. Subsequently, Sargent filed two motions to amend complaint [Docs. 15,
23], which were denied without prejudice. [Docs. 17, 24.]
In his most recent proposed second amended complaint, Sargent attempts to re-assert
previously dismissed claims against current and former Defendants Robin Norris, Steve Long,
Dave Domire and Doug Worsham. The proposed second amended complaint also divides claim
2 into claims 2 and 3 and contains a fourth claim that is listed as claim 3 in the first amended
complaint.
The Court will address the proposed revisions individually. First, Sargent attempts to reassert claims against former defendant Robin Norris and current defendant Doug Worsham in
Claim 1. The Court previously dismissed the Claim 1 claims against Doug Worsham and Robin
Norris, because Plaintiff’s allegations were “too conclusory to state a claim for relief at this
time.” [Doc. 8.] In the first amended complaint, Sargent alleged the following:
Doug Worsham, S.R.S.P. and Robin Norris, Cen. Off.
F.S.C., collectively instituted the rule of serving fasting
inmates a sack lunch under the guise of accommodation, but
has only resulted in a form of punishment for practicing your
2

seriously held religious duty in violation of the 1st
amendment right to free practice of religion, the 14th
amendment to equal protection and to be free from
discrimination, and the R.L.I.P.A.

[Doc. 6 at 7.] In the proposed second amended complaint, the language is similar and states as
follows:
Doug Worsham, Supervisor of Religious and Spiritual
Programming and Robin Norris, Central Office Food Service
Coordinator, collectively instituted the rule of serving fasting
inmates a sack lunch under the guise of accommodation, but
has only resulted in a form of punishment for practicing your
seriously held religious duty in violation of the 1st
amendment right to free practice of religion, the 14th
amendment right to equal protection and to be free from
discrimination, and the R.L.U.I.P.A. Doug Worsham and
Robin Norris knew or should have known what their actions
entailed and that they were violating my rights as stated
above. (See attached Exhibit A).

[Doc. 25-1 at 2-3.] The Exhibit A referenced in the proposed amended complaint, a response to
an Inmate Resolution Request (IRR), states the following:
According to the guidelines for Ramadan 2014 provided by
Doug Worsham, MDOC Supervisor of Religious/Spiritual
Programming, sack meals will be provided for the evening
meal for Ramadan participants. Snack meals (for supper)
will be distributed and consumed in a location and manner
that the respective institution deems suitable. Breakfast is
served as a hot meal and the evening meal served as a sack
lunch as per instructions from Central Office Food Service
Coordinator
Robin
Norris
and
Supervisor
of
Religious/Spiritual
Programming
Doug
Worsham.
. . . Based on these findings, I cannot support you IRR.
[Doc. 25-1, Ex. A.] Exhibit A was not attached to the first amended complaint. Exhibit A
indicates that Robin Norris and Doug Worsham were involved in instituting the “sack lunch”
rules. “A statement in a pleading may be adopted by reference elsewhere in the same pleading or

3

in any other pleading or motion. A copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is
a part of the pleading for all purposes.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c); see also Quinn v. Ocwen Federal
Bank FSB, 470 F.3d 1240, 1243 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Therefore, the Court will allow
Plaintiff’s claims against Norris and Worsham to proceed. See Sterling/Sayyed v. Banks, 72 Fed.
App’x 504, 506 (8th Cir. 2003) (reversal of pre-service dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 of
inmate’s First Amendment claim where attachment to complaint supplied necessary facts).
Next, Plaintiff seeks to renew claims against Steve Long and Dave Domire regarding the
donation and purchase of religious oils that were previously dismissed by the Court. In the first
amended complaint, Sargent alleged the following claims against Long and Domire:
Defendants Steve Long D.A.I. and David Domire D.A.I, did
violate my 1st Amendment right to free practice and my 14th
amendment right to equal protection, and the R.L.U.I.P.A.
when they issued the directive and continued to enforce the
practice of not allowing [M]uslims to receive donations or
purchase from an Islamic vendor religious prayer oils, even
though said oils are recognized as religious property and
religious donations and purchases are allowed and
facilitated, in violation of the above named rights.
[Doc. 6 at 8.] The Court previously dismissed this claim as conclusory. In the proposed second
amended complaint, the language is similar and states as follows:
Defendants Steve Long, D.A.I. and Dave Domire, D.A.I. did
violate my 1st amendment right to freely practice my
religion, my 14th amendment right to equal protection and
the R.L.U.I.P.A., when they issued the directive and
continued to enforce the non-rule of not allowing [M]uslims
to receive as donations or purchase from an Islamic vendor,
religious prayer oils, even though said oils are recognized as
religious property and religious donations are allowed in the
M.D.O.C. policies that govern the same. As an inmate in the
Missouri Department of Corrections, I am compelled to
follow all rules and subsequently, these same rules are to be
followed in the administration of inmates. (See attached
rules, Exhibit D, IS 17-1.1, Rules Governing Religious
Donations). Further, the directive that was issued by both
4

defendants was to discontinue the sale of fragrance oils in
the inmate canteen. Somehow from this directive, they have
blatantly ignore my rights to practice my seriously held
religious beliefs and further, their own rules and regulations
governing the same.

[Doc. 25-1 at 4.]
Exhibit D referenced in the proposed amended complaint states the following: “‘On
April 27, 2011, the DAI Director Steve Long stated, “Oils are available for purchase through the
offender canteen; thus, Wardens should not accept any donations of prayer oils.’ This directive
is still in place per current DAI Director Dave Domire.” [Doc. 25-1 at 9.]
Exhibit D was not attached to the first amended complaint. Exhibit D indicates that Steve
Long and Dave Domire instituted and required enforcement of the policy directive at issue.
Because the attachment to the complaint is a part of the pleading and supplies the factual support
for the claim, the Court will allow this claim to proceed.
The remaining claims in the proposed Second Amended Complaint are the same as the
claims in the currently pending First Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s proposed
Second Amended Complaint survives frivolity review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Based on the foregoing, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Third Amended Motion to Amend
Complaint.

Plaintiff has labeled his proposed Second Amended Complaint as the “Third

Amended Complaint.” In actuality, it would be the Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, the
Court will order that the proposed Amended Complaint be amended by interlineation to be titled
Second Amended Complaint.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Third Amended Motion to Amend
Complaint is GRANTED. [Doc. 25.]
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file Document 25 and its
attachments [Doc. 25-1] as Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, hereby amended by
interlineation to state “Second Amended Complaint.”
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Amend Case Management
Order is GRANTED. [Doc. 26.]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Case Management Order of October 11, 2017 is
AMENDED as follows:
All discovery in this case must be completed by August 20, 2018.
Any motion for summary judgment must be filed no later than September 20, 2018.
Opposition briefs shall be filed no later than October 22, 2018 and any reply brief may be filed no
later than November 5, 2018. Failure to timely file a motion for summary judgment will waive a
party’s right to do so before trial.

Dated this 22nd day of June, 2018.

/s/ Nannette A. Baker
NANNETTE A. BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6