Taylor v. Miller et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 9 Amended Complaint filed by Samuel Lewis Taylor. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall docket this action as Samuel Lewis Taylor v. Michael Miller, Jason Crawford, Dorrain Johnson, Carl Gravett, and Stanley Pruett. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the second of the two second amended complaints [Doc. #9, pages 16-34] is STRICKEN from the record. If plaintiff wishes to pursue the claims set forth therein, he must resubmit the pleading to the Court along with the requisite documents necessary for filing a new and separate civil action, including the filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certified inmate account statement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with respect to plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claims, the Clerk of Court shall issue process or cause process to issue on the second amended complaint [Doc. #9, pages 1-15] as to all five defendants in their individual capacities. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all remai ning federal and/or state claims against defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(g)(2), defendants shall reply to the second amended complaint with in the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court's differentiated case management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (standard prisoner actions). A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/21/15. (CAR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SAMUEL LEWIS TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL MILLER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15-CV-285-RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s second amended
complaint [Doc. #9], filed in response to the June 2, 2015 Memorandum and Order
[Doc. #7], which is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C.
' 1915. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will issue process on plaintiff’s
First Amendment retaliation claims as to all five defendants in their individual
capacities.
28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a complaint
filed in forma pauperis if the action 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. An action is frivolous if Ait lacks an arguable basis in

either law or in fact.@ Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead Aenough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@ Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 555, 570 (2007). To determine whether an action fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must engage in a two-step
inquiry. First, the Court must identify the allegations in the complaint that are not
entitled to the assumption of truth.
(2009).

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950-51

These include Alegal conclusions@ and A[t]hreadbare recitals of the

elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements.@
Id. at 1949. Second, the Court must determine whether the complaint states a
plausible claim for relief.

Id. at 1950-51. This is a Acontext-specific task that

requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.@
Id. at 1950. The plaintiff is required to plead facts that show more than the Amere
possibility of misconduct.@ Id. The Court must review the factual allegations in
the complaint Ato determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.@ Id.
at 1951. When faced with alternative explanations for the alleged misconduct,
the Court may exercise its judgment in determining whether plaintiff=s proffered
conclusion is the most plausible or whether it is more likely that no misconduct
occurred. Id. at 1950-52. Moreover, the Court must give the complaint the
2

benefit of a liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and
weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are
clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
The Second Amended Complaint
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Crossroads Correctional Center, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 for alleged constitutional violations he sustained
while incarcerated at the Potosi Correctional Center (“PCC”).

The Court notes

that, inexplicably, plaintiff’s second amended complaint consists of two separate
complaints, each prepared on a court-provided form. The first of said pleadings is
docketed

as

Document

#9,

pages

1-15,

and

bears

cause

number

4:15-CV-285-RWS; the second is docketed as pages 16-34 and bears no cause
number in the caption. This is not what the Court ordered plaintiff to do.
Rather than dismiss this action for failure to comply with the Court’s June 2
Order, the Court will liberally construe the first of the two second amended
complaints (i.e., Doc. #9, pages 1-15) as plaintiff’s responsive pleading. The
second of the two amended complaints will be stricken from the record (i.e., Doc.
#9, pages 16-34), and if plaintiff wishes to pursue the claims set forth therein, he
must submit the pleading to the Court along with the documents necessary for

3

filing a new civil action, including the filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and certified inmate account statement.
In the second amended complaint now before the Court [Doc. #9, pages
1-15], plaintiff names five PCC employees as defendants: Michael Miller, Jason
Crawford, Dorrain Johnson, Carl Gravett, and Stanley Pruett. Plaintiff claims that
defendants violated his First Amendment right “to redress grievance[s] and
lawsuit[s]” when they retaliated against him for having filed the civil rights
actions, Taylor v. Miller, No. 1:11-CV-174-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.) and Taylor v. Hull,
No. 4:13-CV-1065-CEJ (E.D. Mo.).

More specifically, plaintiff claims that

defendants’ retaliatory conduct consisted of making him switch housing units,
taking his Koss headphones, confiscating legal documents, damaging a watch,
conducting cell searches that left plaintiff’s cell “in total disarray,” intentionally
dropping plaintiff’s typewriter to impede his efforts in pursuing his legal claims
and refusing to allow plaintiff to repair the typewriter, taking plaintiff’s postage
stamps, allowing another inmate to steal plaintiff’s personal property, giving
plaintiff bogus disciplinary charges, and taking plaintiff’s winter coat and refusing
to send him additional clothing. Plaintiff states that had he not filed the lawsuits,
he would not have suffered these constitutional violations. In addition, plaintiff
generally states that defendants were engaged in a conspiracy against him and that
4

“a policy or custom of the employer was responsible for the alleged constitutional
violation[s].” Last, plaintiff states that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction
over his state law claims, which are unspecified.

Plaintiff is suing defendants in

their individual and official capacities.
Discussion
1. Official Capacity Claims
Plaintiff is suing defendants in both their official and individual capacities.
Naming a government official in his or her official capacity is the equivalent of
naming the government entity that employs the official, in this case the State of
Missouri. See Will v. Michigan Dep=t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
A[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are >persons= under
' 1983.@ Id. Moreover, plaintiff’s conclusory claims of “policy or custom” are
legally frivolous and will be dismissed.

See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78 (legal

conclusions and threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action that are
supported by mere conclusory statements are not entitled to the assumption of truth).
For these reasons, the second amended complaint is legally frivolous and fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted against defendants in their official
capacities.

5

2. Individual Capacity Claims
The Court finds that plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against
all five defendants in their individual capacities state a claim for relief and are
sufficient to proceed. As such, the Court will instruct the Clerk of Court to issue
summons and process on these claims.
3. All Remaining Claims
To the extent that plaintiff is attempting to assert additional federal and/or
state claims, they will be dismissed as conclusory and/or as legally frivolous and for
failure to state a claim or cause of action. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B); Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 677-78 (legal conclusions and threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action that are supported by mere conclusory statements are not entitled to
the assumption of truth); 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);
Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir. 2010) (conspiracy claim under § 1983
alleging violation of constitutional rights requires allegations of specific facts
tending to show meeting of minds among alleged conspirators).

6

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall docket this action
as Samuel Lewis Taylor v. Michael Miller, Jason Crawford, Dorrain Johnson, Carl
Gravett, and Stanley Pruett.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the second of the two second amended
complaints [Doc. #9, pages 16-34] is STRICKEN from the record. If plaintiff
wishes to pursue the claims set forth therein, he must resubmit the pleading to the
Court along with the requisite documents necessary for filing a new and separate
civil action, including the filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and certified inmate account statement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with respect to plaintiff’s First
Amendment retaliation claims, the Clerk of Court shall issue process or cause
process to issue on the second amended complaint [Doc. #9, pages 1-15] as to all
five defendants in their individual capacities.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all remaining federal and/or state claims
against defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice.
1915(e)(2)(B).

7

See 28 U.S.C. '

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(g)(2),
defendants shall reply to the second amended complaint within the time provided by
the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court's differentiated
case management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (standard prisoner
actions).
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and
Order.
Dated this 21st day of September, 2015.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8