Taylor v. Hull et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $75.58 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintif f 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 FUR THER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to be issued upon the complaint as to the following defendants in their individual capacities: (1) Unknown Hull, a correctional officer employed at PCC on June 3, 2012; (2) Unknown Milb urn, a correctional officer employed at PCC on June 3, 2012; (3) Unknown Ruble, a correctional officer employed at PCC on June 3, 2012; (4) Unknown Yancy, a Corizon nurse working at PCC on June 3, 2012; and (5) Heather Unknown, a Corizon nurse workin g at PCC on June 5, 2012. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Unknown Hull, Unknown Milburn, Unknown Ruble, Unknown Yancy, and Heather Unknown, in their individual capacities, shall file an answer or other responsive pleading within the time provid ed by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to this Courts differentiated case management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (prisoner actions- standard). A separate order of partial dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/9/13. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SAMUEL LEWIS TAYLOR,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN HULL, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:13-CV-1065-CEJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on remand from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See Taylor v. Hull, No. 13-3044 (8th Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff, Samuel Lewis Taylor (registration no. 166914), seeks leave to
commence this action without payment of the required filing fee. For the reasons
stated below, the Court will grant plaintiff in forma pauperis status and assess an initial
partial filing fee of $75.58. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). In addition, the Court will (1)
dismiss plaintiff's official capacity claims against all defendants; (2) dismiss this action
as to defendant Troy Steele; and (3) order the Clerk to issue process as to defendants
Unknown Hull, Unknown Milburn, Unknown Ruble, Unknown Yancy, and Heather
Unknown in their individual capacities.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), a prisoner bringing a civil action in forma
pauperis is required to pay the full amount of the filing fee.

If the prisoner has

insufficient funds in his prison account to pay the entire fee, the Court must assess
and, when funds exist, collect an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of
(1) the average monthly deposits in the prisoner's account; or (2) the average monthly

balance in the prisoner's account for the prior six-month period. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1). After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner is required to
make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to
the prisoner's account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of
the prisoner will forward these monthly payments to the Clerk of Court each time the
amount in the prisoner's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is fully paid. Id.
Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit and a certified copy of his prison account
statement [Doc. #24]. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),(2). A review of plaintiff’s account
statement indicates an average monthly deposit of $9.92 and an average monthly
account balance of $377.88. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee.
Accordingly, the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $75.58, which is 20
percent of plaintiff’s average monthly balance.
28 U.S.C. § 1915
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the "court shall review before docketing if
feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity." The Court is to dismiss the complaint, or any
portion, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915A, 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,

2

unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless.

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25

(1992).
The Complaint
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Crossroads Correctional Center, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
Plaintiff’s allegations arise out of his confinement at the Potosi Correctional Center
(“PCC”). Named as defendants are Unknown Hull (a correctional officer at PCC),
Unknown Milburn (a correctional officer at PCC), Unknown Ruble (a correctional officer
at PCC), Heather Unknown (a Corizon nurse at PCC), Unknown Yancy (a Corizon nurse
at PCC), and Troy Steele (the warden at PCC). Plaintiff is suing defendants in both
their individual and official capacities.
Plaintiff alleges that on June 3, 2012, defendants Milburn and Hull physically
assaulted him while he was in handcuffs, thereby causing serious physical injuries.
Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Ruble “watched without interfering with
[defendant] Milburn.” Additionally, plaintiff claims that defendants Yancy and Heather
failed to provide medical care for his serious and obvious injuries.
Discussion
I. Official Capacity Claims
Section 1983 provides that a person who, under color of state law, deprives an
individual of his constitutional rights may be held liable for the deprivation. Bringing
suit based on § 1983 against a government official (such as a prison correctional
officer or warden) in his official capacity is the equivalent of bringing suit against the
government entity that employs the official. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police,

3

491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). However, “neither a State nor its officials acting in their
official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Id. Therefore, plaintiff cannot maintain
this action against the PCC defendants in their official capacity.

Similarly, to state a

claim against a Corizon employee in his official capacity, the plaintiff must allege that
a policy or custom of the employer was responsible for the alleged constitutional
violation. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). The
instant complaint does not contain any allegations that a policy or custom of Corizon
was responsible for the alleged violations of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. For these
reasons, the complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted as to all defendants in their official capacities.
II. Remaining Claims
The Court finds that plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim under
the Eighth Amendment against defendants Hull, Milburn, Ruble, Yancy, and Heather
in their individual capacities. As such, the Court will direct that process be issued as
to these defendants and will instruct these defendants to respond to the complaint.
The complaint will be dismissed as to defendant Troy Steele, because plaintiff has
failed to make any allegations or assert any claims against him. See Ellis v. Norris,
179 F.3d 1078, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999) (§ 1983 claimant must allege facts supporting
individual defendant’s personal involvement or responsibility for unconstitutional
action); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (claim not cognizable
under § 1983 where plaintiff fails to allege defendant was personally involved in or
directly responsible for incidents that injured plaintiff); Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968
(8th Cir. 1995) (respondeat superior theory inapplicable in § 1983 suits).

4

In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $75.58
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 shall issue process or cause process
to be issued upon the complaint as to the following defendants in their individual
capacities: (1) “Unknown Hull,” a correctional officer employed at PCC on June 3,
2012; (2) “Unknown Milburn,” a correctional officer employed at PCC on June 3, 2012;
(3) “Unknown Ruble,” a correctional officer employed at PCC on June 3, 2012; (4)
“Unknown Yancy,” a Corizon nurse working at PCC on June 3, 2012; and (5) “Heather
Unknown,” a Corizon nurse working at PCC on June 5, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Unknown Hull, Unknown Milburn,
Unknown Ruble, Unknown Yancy, and Heather Unknown, in their individual capacities,
shall file an answer or other responsive pleading within the time provided by the
applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to this Court’s differentiated case
management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (prisoner actions-standard).

5

A separate order of partial dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and
Order.
Dated this 9th day of December, 2013.

______________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6