United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). The motion is granted. Additionally,
the Court will dismiss portions of the complaint.
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.
time he filed the complaint, plaintiff was incarcerated at
the Southeast Correctional Center (SECC). He has since been
released. Plaintiff arrived at SECC in November 2009. Before
that, he was at the Northeast Correctional Center (NECC).
Plaintiff is handicapped and bound to a wheelchair. While he
was at NECC, he was placed in a “handicapped”
cell, with handrails, a shower, and a handicapped toilet.
his arrival at SECC, plaintiff was placed in a handicapped
cell. On October 10, 2014, defendants Carl Jacobsen and Jay
Gorham moved plaintiff to a non-handicapped cell. The
following day, plaintiff injured himself while trying to use
the toilet. He “jammed his tail-bone [sic] and lower
back, ” and he sought treatment from the medical unit.
Because of his injuries, he had to stop taking his Hepatitis
C medicine “for a while, ” because he had
difficulty using the toilet.
filed a request for reasonable accommodations on October 20,
2014. According to plaintiff, defendant Becky Lizenbee, who
is a nurse, “fraudulently signed” it, because she
“was not qualified or authorized to do so.” He
says she did it as a favor to defendant Omar Clark, the
Deputy Warden. Clark offered plaintiff a handicapped cell in
another housing unit. It appears that plaintiff refused the
offer because it was not an “honor-wing” and he
was on “honor status.” So, he was moved back to a
“semi-handicapped” cell that did not have hand
rails by defendant Jacobsen.
November 2, 2015, plaintiff was moved to a non-handicapped
cell because another inmate injured himself. Plaintiff
requested an accommodation, but defendants Jacobsen and Clark
denied it, finding that he did not require a specific cell,
“only ‘lower walk, ’ ‘lower
bunk.’” Plaintiff says that there is a shortage
of handicapped cells at SECC, and he says the institution
cannot accommodate all of its handicapped inmates. Plaintiff
believes there is only one complete handicapped cell, with
hand rails and a proper toilet.
Section 1983 Claims
state a claim for medical mistreatment, plaintiff must plead
facts sufficient to indicate a deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976); Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174,
175 (8th Cir. 1995). Allegations of mere negligence in giving
or failing to supply medical treatment will not suffice.
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. In order to show
deliberate indifference, plaintiff must allege that he
suffered objectively serious medical needs and that
defendants actually knew of but deliberately disregarded
those needs. Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239
(8th Cir. 1997). In order to state a claim against Corizon,
plaintiff must allege that there was a policy, custom or
official action that caused an actionable injury. Sanders
v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972, 95-76 (8th
allegations under § 1983 do not state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Plaintiff does not allege that
defendants ignored his serious medical needs. He says that he
was moved between a handicapped cell and semi-handicapped
cells. He was occasionally put in non-handicapped cells on
the lower walk when other prisoners were put into the
handicapped cells. His only injury as the result of the
placement was a “jammed” tailbone and low back,
for which he sought medical treatment. At the best, his
allegations amount to negligence. Additionally,
plaintiff’s claim that Lizenbee ...