Burns v. Missouri Department of Corrections et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 13 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendant Missouri Department of Corrections. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs official capacity claims for monetary damages against defendants Timothy Seabaugh, Chris Ska ggs, Johnny Williams, Melanie Hinkle, and Susan Price are DISMISSED. A separate order of partial dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Missouri Department of Corrections' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 13) is DENIED a s moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue process or cause process to issue upon the amended complaint, pursuant to the service agreement the Court maintains with the Missouri Attorney General's Office, as to defendants Timothy Seabaugh, Chris Skaggs, Johnny Williams, Melanie Hinkle, and Susan Price. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 5/14/18. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL BURNS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-cv-2304-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the filing of an amended complaint by plaintiff
Michael Burns. For the reasons explained below, the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s official
capacity claims for monetary damages against defendants Timothy Seabaugh, Chris Skaggs,
Johnny Williams, Melanie Hinkle, and Susan Price, and will direct the Clerk of Court to issue
process upon the amended complaint as to these defendants on the remaining claims.
Legal Standard on Initial Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in
forma pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is
frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
328 (1989). An action is malicious if it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing the named
defendants and not for the purpose of vindicating a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F.
Supp. 458, 461-63 (E.D.N.C. 1987), aff’d 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987). An action fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,570 (2007).
Pro se complaints are to be liberally construed, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976), but they still must allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law.
Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980).

The Court must weigh all factual

allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
The Amended Complaint
Plaintiff filed the amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Timothy
Seabaugh, Chris Skaggs, Johnny Williams, Melanie Hinkle, Susan Price, John Doe, and Jane
Doe.1 He sues the defendants in an official and individual capacity.
According to the amended complaint, the Missouri Department of Corrections has a
procedure that allows it to issue restitution against inmates without giving them a pre-deprivation
hearing or an opportunity to contest the amount of damages they are required to pay. Pursuant to
this procedure, Missouri Department of Corrections employees Seabaugh, Skaggs, Williams,
Price, Hinkle, and the Doe defendants determined that plaintiff owed a certain amount of
restitution and/or damages without giving him a pre-deprivation hearing or any chance to contest
the amount. Plaintiff also alleges that the Doe defendants “have also violated my due process
rights by maintaining such procedure which serves to deprive a person of his liberty interest in
his account.” (Docket No. 18 at 7). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the amount of $10,000
against each defendant, “repeal of such procedure,” reimbursement of funds removed, and a lien
removed from his account. Id. at 8.

1

In the original complaint, plaintiff named the Missouri Department of Corrections, which subsequently
filed a motion to dismiss. He did not name the Missouri Department of Corrections in the amended
complaint. As the Missouri Department of Corrections is no longer a party to this action, the motion to
dismiss is moot and will be denied as such.

2

Discussion
Having liberally construed the amended complaint and weighed the factual allegations in
plaintiff’s favor, the Court concludes, for screening purposes, that plaintiff has adequately stated
a due process claim against the defendants in their individual capacities, and in their official
capacities to the extent he seeks injunctive or prospective relief.

Prisoners have a

constitutionally-protected interest in money they receive from outside sources, and they are
entitled to due process before they can be deprived of it. Murray v. Dosal, 150 F.3d 814, 819
(8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281, 1287 (6th Cir. 1997)); see also
Mahers v. Halford, 76 F.3d 951, 954 (8th Cir. 1996). However, plaintiff’s official capacity
claims for monetary damages against the defendants will be dismissed. See Andrus ex rel.
Andrus v. Arkansas, 197 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1999) (an official capacity claim against a state
employee for monetary damages is barred under the Eleventh Amendment).
Turning to the Doe defendants, the Court notes that generally, fictitious parties may not
be named as defendants in a civil action. Phelps v. United States, 15 F.3d 735, 739 (8th Cir.
1994).

An action may proceed against a party whose name is unknown, however, if the

complaint makes sufficiently specific allegations to permit identification of the party after
reasonable discovery. Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 1985). In this case, plaintiff
can be understood to allege that both Doe defendants were Missouri Department of Corrections
employees who were involved in the process used to determine the amount of money plaintiff
owed without giving him due process. The Court concludes, for screening purposes, that these
allegations are sufficiently specific to permit their identification following reasonable discovery,
and will therefore not dismiss them at this time.
Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s official capacity claims for monetary
damages against defendants Timothy Seabaugh, Chris Skaggs, Johnny Williams, Melanie
Hinkle, and Susan Price are DISMISSED. A separate order of partial dismissal will be entered
herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Missouri Department of Corrections’ Motion to
Dismiss (Docket No. 13) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue process or cause
process to issue upon the amended complaint, pursuant to the service agreement the Court
maintains with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, as to defendants Timothy Seabaugh,
Chris Skaggs, Johnny Williams, Melanie Hinkle, and Susan Price.
Dated this 14th day of May, 2018.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4