Burns v. Missouri Department of Corrections et al

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Melanie Hinkle, Defendant Susan Price, Defendant Chris Skaggs, Defendant Johnny Williams, Defendant Timothy Seabaugh. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment (#37) is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 9/30/19. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL BURNS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TIMOTHY SEABAUGH, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:17CV2304 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Plaintiff Michael Burns is a prisoner in the Missouri Department of Corrections.
He filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, pro se, against defendants Timothy Seabaugh, Chris
Skaggs, Johnny Williams, Susan Price, and Melanie Hinkle alleging violations of his due
process rights. Defendants moved for summary judgment on January 28, 2019 (#38).
Plaintiff has sought and received three extensions of time in which to file a response.
Most recently, on July 8, 2019, this Court granted plaintiff until September 9, 2019 by
which to file his response in opposition to summary judgment (#47). The Court stated
that no further extensions would be granted. Plaintiff has not filed a response.
I.

Factual Background
Plaintiff has, as an offender in the Missouri Department of Corrections, been

found guilty of several conduct violations that involved destruction of property. For
example, plaintiff was found to have flooded his cell with his toilet and pulled the
1

sprinkler head system. Plaintiff was found guilty in a disciplinary hearing which he
refused to attend. The recommended consequence was that he pay damages of $28.95
for the broken sprinkler head. The recommendation was approved, and the money was
requested to be withdrawn from plaintiff’s account. Several other similar events took
place resulting in the withdrawal of money from plaintiff’s account. Plaintiff claims that
disciplinary hearings on these conduct violations did not constitute sufficient due process
for defendants to remove money from his prison account. Plaintiff claims he was denied
due process through these transactions. Defendants move for summary judgment.
Because their statement of undisputed facts has not been disputed by plaintiff, the facts
are admitted in accordance with the Local Rule 7-4.01(E).
II.

Legal Standard
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), a district court may grant a

motion for summary judgment if the information before the court demonstrates that
“there is no genuine issue as to material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 467
(1962). The burden is on the moving party. City of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa v. Assoc. Elec.
Co-op., Inc., 838 F.2d 268, 273 (8th Cir. 1988). After the moving party discharges this
burden, the nonmoving party must do more than show that there is some doubt as to the
facts. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
Instead, the nonmoving party bears the burden of setting forth specific facts showing that
there is sufficient evidence in its favor to allow a jury to return a verdict for it. Anderson

2

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
324 (1986).
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must review the facts in a
light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and give that party the benefit of
any inferences that logically can be drawn from those facts. Buller v. Buechler, 706 F.2d
844, 846 (8th Cir. 1983). The court is required to resolve all conflicts of evidence in
favor of the nonmoving party. Robert Johnson Grain Co. v. Chem. Interchange Co., 541
F.2d 207, 210 (8th Cir. 1976).
III.

Discussion
Plaintiff does not state whether he seeks relief under procedural due process or

substantive due process. “Substantive due process prevents the government from
interfering with rights ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’” Dawdy v. Allen, No.
2:17cv49 AGF, 2018 WL 999974, *5 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 21, 2018) (quoting United States v.
Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746 (1987)). “Procedural due process ensures that ‘[w]hen
government action depriving a person of life, liberty or property survives substantive due
process scrutiny, it must still be implemented in a fair manner.’” Id.
To prevail on a substantive due process claim, a plaintiff “must first demonstrate
that he was deprived of life, liberty, or property by government action.” Orr v. Larkins,
610 F.3d 1032, 1034 (8th Cir. 2010). “Inmates have a property interest in money
received from outside sources.” Mahers v. Halford, 76 F.3d 951, 954 (8th Cir. 1996).
The nature of the money in plaintiff’s inmate account is unclear. Regardless,
“[a]lthough the inmates’ private interest in their personal funds is apparent, inmates are
not entitled to complete control over their money while in prison.” Id. For example,
3

state officials are not barred from applying inmate account moneys to the inmates’
criminal restitution obligations. Id. Assuming for the sake of argument that plaintiff can
show a property interest in his inmate account, plaintiff is unable to show he was
deprived of that interest without sufficient process. Defendants followed procedures
required by the state in assessing restitution amounts against plaintiff. Although plaintiff
alleges in his complaint that the amount of restitution to be withdrawn was determined
“without a hearing,” the evidence shows that hearings were in fact held. Further, the
evidence shows that plaintiff failed to attend the hearing. As stated above, plaintiff
failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment despite extensions of over six
months. Plaintiff has not shown that he was deprived of due process, and the motion for
summary judgment will be granted.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(#37) is GRANTED.
Dated this

30th

day of September, 2019.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4