v. Manuel-Bey et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc.#2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $14.94 within thirty (30) days of the date of th is Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to Clerk, United States District Court, and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) hisprison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for an original proc eeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to pay the initial partial filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, then this case will be dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue proces s or cause process to issue upon the complaint as to defendants Functional Unit Manager Price at Potosi Correctional Center and Caseworker Pruitt at Potosi Correctional Center. These individuals are being sued in their individual capacities only, and they shall be served in accordance with the waiver agreement the Court maintains with the Attorney Generals Office. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), defendants Functional Unit Manager Price at Potosi Correctional Center and Caseworker Pruitt at Potosi Correctional Center shall reply to plaintiff's claims within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint as to defendants Unknown Browers, Unknown White, and/or Warden John or Jane Doe because, as to these defendants, the complaint is legally frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which r elief can be granted, or both. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue on the official capacity claims against defendants Unknown Price and Unknown Pruitt. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs pro se Mo tion of Material Facts [Doc.#5] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as the Court does not accept discovery. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs request for injunctive relief [Doc. #7] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is assigned to Track 5B: Prisoner Standard. An Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. 5 2 Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 8/22/18. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL T. MANUEL-BEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN PRUITT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:18-CV-293 NAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Michael T. Manuel-Bey
(registration no. 274030), an inmate at Potosi Correctional Center, for leave to commence this
action without payment of the required filing fee. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds
that the plaintiff does not have sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee and will assess an
initial partial filing fee of $14.94. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Furthermore, after reviewing the
complaint, the Court will partially dismiss the complaint and will order the Clerk to issue process
or cause process to be issued on the non-frivolous portions of the complaint.
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 or
her 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 sixmonth period. 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. 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, until the filing fee is fully paid. Id.
Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit and a certified copy of his prison account statement
for the six-month period immediately preceding the submission of his complaint. A review of
plaintiff's account indicates an average monthly deposit of $74.71. Plaintiff has insufficient
funds to pay the entire filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of
$14.94, which is 20 percent of plaintiff's average monthly deposit.
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 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is
frivolous if it Alacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.@ Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
328 (1989); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). 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). A complaint fails to state a claim 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. 544, 570 (2007).
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil
rights. Named as defendants are: Unknown Pruitt (Caseworker); Unknown White (Functional
Unit Manager); Unknown Browers (Bed Broker); Unknown Price (Functional Unit Manager);
and John or Jane Doe Warden. Plaintiff brings this action against defendants in both their
individual and official capacities.

-2-

Plaintiff states that he was forced to cell with three chain-smokers in November of 2017
at Potosi Correctional Center in violation of his medical lay-in. Plaintiff states that he
complained about his cellmates smoking in the cell, in spite of the non-smoking policy at the
prison, telling both Functional Unit Manager Price and Caseworker Pruitt.
Plaintiff asserts that he told both defendant Price and Pruitt that he needed to be moved
from the assigned cell because he was a non-smoker and he had a non-smoking cell lay-in due to
sinus issues. Plaintiff states that he asked Pruitt to be allowed to file a grievance about the issue,
but Pruitt refused to give him a grievance. Plaintiff asserts that he filed a “missive” to the FUMs
and the Warden regarding the issue, but they refused to answer the missive.
Plaintiff states that after complaining several times to Pruitt, Pruitt did tell him that he
had spoken to Unknown White about the issue, and that he would put him on the list to move to
“Six House.” As of the filing of the complaint, plaintiff states that he had still not been moved
from the smoking cell in accordance with his lay-in.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief in this action.
Discussion
A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Review
The Court believes that plaintiff has alleged enough facts to pass 28 U.S.C. § 1915
review with respect to the fact that defendants Pruitt and Price allegedly disregarded his medical
lay-in and/or his conditions of confinement when he told them that the non-smoking policy was
not being enforced by his cellmates and that he needed to be moved to a different cell due to his
sinus problems. Thus, the Court will issue process on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims
against Price and Pruitt in their individual capacities only.
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. Will v.

-3-

Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). “[N]either a State nor its officials acting
in their official capacity are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Id. As a result, the complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to defendants Price and Pruitt in their
official capacities, and these claims will be dismissed.
Plaintiff’s claims against Browers and White will also be dismissed, as plaintiff has not
alleged that these defendants were personally involved in or directly responsible for the incidents
that injured plaintiff. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff does not
allege that he directly complained to defendants White or Browers about the alleged violations
and that they actively participated in violating his Constitutional rights. Rather, plaintiff simply
states that Browers and White should have acted after they learned about the issue from others.
Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990) (ALiability under § 1983 requires a
causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the alleged deprivation of rights.@). Similarly,
plaintiff’s claim against Warden John or Jane Doe is subject to dismissal, as there is no
supervisory liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995)
(respondeat superior theory inapplicable in § 1983 suits). Moreover, the Warden cannot be held
responsible simply because the Warden failed to answer plaintiff’s grievance/missive
complaining of the failure to adhere to the lay-in. Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir.
1993) (a prison officials’ failure to process or investigate grievances, without more, is not
actionable under § 1983; grievance procedure is procedural right only and does not confer
substantive right on inmate).
B. Review of Plaintiff’s Proposed Order to Show Cause for Injunctive Relief [Doc.
#7]
On May 31, 2018, plaintiff submitted a proposed order “to show cause for preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order.” [Doc. #7]. In his proposed order, plaintiff states that

-4-

he wishes to enjoin defendants from having gang members assault him at Potosi. Plaintiff also
states that defendants Price and Browers appear to be acting in concert and should be “restrained
from the machination of the plot to have the plaintiff maimed or killed.” Alternatively, plaintiff
seeks a transfer from Potosi Correctional Center.
In his memorandum attached to the proposed order, plaintiff states that in April of 2018,
Price and Browers placed him on the workers list knowing he had an “active enemy unsigned
waiver list.” Plaintiff alleges that Price and Browers intentionally placed one of his enemies on
his work shift and “compelled” him to get into a fight. Plaintiff states that it is his belief that
these two defendants are part of the Family Values gang and could be acting in retaliation for
filing the present lawsuit. Plaintiff has attached two copies of conduct violation reports to his
proposed order, one dated March 20, 2018 and a second report dated May 21, 2019.
The first conduct violation report describes a multiple offender altercation, which
included numerous inmates fighting during a med pass. According to the violation report,
plaintiff was simply one inmate of many fighting. Neither Price’s name nor Browers’ name was
mentioned in the report. In the second conduct violation report, plaintiff purportedly was
observed assaulting an inmate during a work detail in a housing unit. Again, neither Price’s name
nor Browers’ name was mentioned in the report.
“A court issues a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit to preserve the status quo and
prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit’s merits. Thus,
a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the
injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v.
Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). In this case, there is no relationship between the
injury claimed in plaintiff’s proposed order “to show cause for preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order” and the conduct relating to a violation of plaintiff’s non-smoking

-5-

lay-in asserted in the complaint. Consequently, to the extent plaintiff’s proposed order in Docket
#7 can be construed as a motion for preliminary injunction, this request will be denied.
C. Plaintiff’s Motion for Material Facts
Last, the Court will address plaintiff’s “Motion for Material Facts,” [Doc. #5], which
consists only of a copy of plaintiff’s lay-in, as well as two affidavits from inmates who appear to
be roommates with plaintiff. The Court does not accept discovery from parties unless submitted
as an exhibit to a motion, such as a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment.
Because plaintiff’s affidavits and copy of his lay-in were not submitted in support of a motion,
the Court will deny the “Motion for Material Facts” at this time.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc.
#2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $14.94
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 if plaintiff fails to pay the initial partial filing fee
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, then this case will be dismissed without
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to
issue upon the complaint as to defendants Functional Unit Manager Price at Potosi Correctional
Center and Caseworker Pruitt at Potosi Correctional Center. These individuals are being sued in

-6-

their individual capacities only, and they shall be served in accordance with the waiver
agreement the Court maintains with the Attorney General’s Office
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), defendants
Functional Unit Manager Price at Potosi Correctional Center and Caseworker Pruitt at Potosi
Correctional Center shall reply to plaintiff's claims within the time provided by the applicable
provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to
issue upon the complaint as to defendants Unknown Browers, Unknown White, and/or Warden
John or Jane Doe because, as to these defendants, the complaint is legally frivolous or fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to
issue on the official capacity claims against defendants Unknown Price and Unknown Pruitt.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s pro se “Motion of Material Facts” [Doc.
#5] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as the Court does not accept discovery.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief [Doc. #7] is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is assigned to Track 5B: Prisoner Standard.
An Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 22nd day of August, 2018.

\s\ Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-7-