Monroe v. Bernsen et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to issue process on defendants Herbert Bernsen, Lillie Hopkins, Milton Mitchell, Unknown Lt. Davis, Unknown Lt. Woods, Unknown (Caseworker) Fitzgerald, and Unknown (Caseworker) Sanchez. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Major Howard, Unknown Hayward, Unknown Perry, Steve Timmons, Fay Crancer, Linda Hendrix, and Rita Hendrix are DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Partial Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 10/29/2015. (NEB)

UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JASON MONROE,
Plaintiff,
v.
HERBERT L. BERNSEN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15CV1049 DDN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the St. Louis County Justice Center (the "Center"), brings
this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against fourteen officials at the Center. He seeks monetary
and injunctive relief.

After review, the Court finds that the complaint should issue as to

defendants Herbert Bernsen, Lillie Hopkins, Milton Mitchell, Unknown Lt. Davis, Unknown Lt.
Woods, Unknown (Caseworker) Fitzgerald, and Unknown (Caseworker) Sanchez.

The

remaining defendants are dismissed without prejudice.
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

Plaintiffs complaint is comprised of twelve separate claims.

In claim one, plaintiff

alleges that defendants Herbert Bernsen and Milton Mitchell caused him to have chronic sleep
deprivation by leaving a light on overnight and forcing him to sleep in a "boat" on the floor
within less than a foot from a toilet. Plaintiff also claims that the prisoners' clothes are not
washed properly, that the food is not prepared properly, and that the toilets are not available
often enough. Plaintiff says he has not been given adequate dental care, which has resulted in
lost teeth from abscesses. He also claims he has been deprived of sunlight for about thirty-eight
months, which has led to a myriad of physical and mental problems.
Plaintiffs claims regarding his sleep deprivation, lack of dental care, and deprivation of
sunlight all state plausible claims for relief under § 1983. As a result, defendants Bernsen and
Mitchell will be required to respond to these claims. Plaintiffs claims regarding prisoners'
clothing, food preparation, and toilets, however, are too vague to state a claim for relief, and
these claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In claim two, plaintiff claims that defendants Lillie Hopkins and Major Howard allowed
officers under their supervision to "punish" him for speaking during meals, for speaking while in
line for razor pass, and for speaking while watching television. Plaintiff says that in one instance
defendant Perry threatened to "make inmates ' sleep with the fishes ' for talking in the medicine
line." Otherwise, plaintiff does not specify what punishment he was subjected to.

2

Plaintiffs unspecified claims regarding "punishment" are too vague to support a claim
under § 1983. Moreover, threats alone do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See
Burton v. Livingston, 791 F.2d 97, 99 (8th Cir. 1986) ("mere words, without more, do not invade

a federally protected right."). Therefore, claim two fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
In claim three, plaintiff alleges that defendants Bernsen and Mitchell do not allow him to
receive magazines such as XXL, Maxim, the Evening Whirl, and many others. After review, the
Court finds that this claim states a plausible claim for relief, and Bernsen and Mitchell will be
required to respond to this claim.
In claim four, plaintiff asserts that defendant Hopkins denied him access to mail
containing public records. This claim also states a plausible claim for relief, and Hopkins will be
required to respond to this claim.
In claim five, plaintiff says that Lt. Perry violated his and other prisoners' rights by
refusing to allowing "inmate workers" to correspond with female inmates while working on the
fourth floor, which is presumably where the female prisoners are housed. He does not allege,
however, that he has any established relationship with a female inmate. Nor does he allege that
he has been prevented from sending regular mail to an inmate with which he has a relationship.
He says Perry threatened to remove him from his prison job, remove him from the fourth floor,
and place him on lockdown if he failed to comply.
Based on the Court' s "judicial experience and common sense," the Court finds that claim
five does not rise to the level of plausibility. Iqbal, 566 U.S. at 679. This claim is contingent on
plaintiffs status as a worker in an area where there are female prisoners. It appears he wishes to
pass them notes while he is working. This implicates serious security interests, and it also raises

3

safety concerns for the female inmates. The consequences of losing his prison job and being
removed from the fourth floor do not implicate the constitution. E.g., Lornholt v. Holder, 287
F .3d 683, 684 (8th Cir. 2002) (a prisoner has "no constitutional right to a particular prison job.").
Plaintiff has not alleged that he has been prohibited from corresponding with a family member or
other person with whom he has a relationship.

As a result, plaintiff has not implicated a

constitutional right, and this claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Moreover, " [q]ualified immunity protects state actors from civil liability when their
conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known. " Maness v. Dist. Court, 495 F.3d 943 , 944 (8th Cir.
2007) (analyzing qualified immunity on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) review).

The Court has

found no federal precedent finding that male prison workers have a right to pass correspondence
to female inmates while performing their duties as workers. Even if a constitutional right is
implicated here, it is not a clearly established right. E.g. Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993 , 1001 (8th
Cir. 2010) (clearly established requirement) . Therefore, Perry is entitled to qualified immunity
on this claim.
In claim six, plaintiff alleges that defendants Hopkins, Bernsen, Howard, and Hayward
retaliated against him for having filed grievances by moving him to a higher classification level
(from housing unit 4A to SB). Defendants ' stated reason for moving him to the higher level was
that he had been at the Center for a long time and that he may have formed a relationship with a
correctional officer that resulted in favoritism . Plaintiff believes that the reclassification was
punishment.
To succeed on a § 1983 retaliation claim, plaintiff must prove that he engaged in
protected activity and that defendants, to retaliate for the protected activity, took adverse action

4

against plaintiff that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in that activity.
See Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 876 (8th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 860 (2005).
Plaintiff has failed to show that defendants took an adverse action against him m
retaliation for engaging in a protected activity. He has not alleged that being placed at a higher
classification level deprived him of any privileges or rights. Nor has he alleged that he was
subjected to any atypical prison conditions as a result of the reclassification. The allegations are
vague and conclusory, and they fall short of showing that the reclassification would chill a
person of ordinary firmness from engaging in the grievance system. As a result, claim six fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In claim seven, plaintiff claims that Lt. Woods retaliated against him for filing grievances
by having him fired from his prison job. The Court finds that this claim states a plausible claim
for relief, and Woods will be required to respond to this claim.
In claim eight, plaintiff alleges that Davis retaliated against him by showing his grievance
to another inmate, which caused him to be labeled a snitch. The Court finds that this states a
plausible claim for relief, and Davis will be required to respond to this claim.
In claim nine, plaintiff asserts that defendants Mrs. Sanchez and Mrs. Fitzgerald violated
his right of access to the courts because they did not provide a proper law library. He says he has
not been able to file a proper claim about the property that was seized from him during his arrest,
and he claims he has suffered severe financial loss as a result.
"To state a claim [for denial of meaningful access to the courts], inmates must assert that
they suffered an actual injury to pending or contemplated legal claims." Myers v. Hundley, 101
F.3d 542, 544 (8th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff has alleged harm to a contemplated legal claim. As a
result, the Court will require defendants Sanchez and Fitzgerald to respond to this claim.

5

In claim ten, plaintiff says that Fay Crancer and Rita Hendrix, who are administrators of
the Health Clinic, failed to properly respond to his grievances.
"Only persons who cause or participate in the [constitutional] violations are responsible.
Ruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the
violation." George v. Smith, 507 F. 3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). As a result,
claim ten does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In claim eleven, plaintiff alleges that defendants Bernsen, Hopkins, and Mitchell "failed
to provide a clean and healthy environment." He says that the showers had black mold in them,
that the security screens had dust on them, and that there was no filtration system in the
recreation area. He has not alleged that he suffered any injury as a result of these conditions.
These allegations are vague, and without any allegations of harm, they fail to state a claim under
§ 1983.

Finally, in claim twelve, plaintiff claims that during visits the inmates are confined in
rooms measuring four-by-four feet and without any ventilation. He says that they are often left
there by staff long after the visits are over, and he claims the rooms do not have an intercom.
"Liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the alleged
deprivation of rights." Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203 , 1208 (8th Cir. 1990); see Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) ("Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and
§ 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the

official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution."). In the instant action, plaintiff
has not set forth any facts indicating that any of the defendants were directly involved in or
personally responsible for the alleged conditions of the visitation rooms.
twelve fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

6

As a result, claim

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to issue process on defendants
Herbert Bernsen, Lillie Hopkins, Milton Mitchell, Unknown Lt. Davis, Unknown Lt. Woods,
Unknown (Caseworker) Fitzgerald, and Unknown (Caseworker) Sanchez.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Major Howard, Unknown Hayward,
Unknown Perry, Steve Timmons, Fay Crancer, Linda Hendrix, and Rita Hendrix are

DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Partial Dismissal will be filed separately.

Dated~ayofOctober, 2015.

~L~
aEL.WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7