United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a prisoner, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against several officials at the Southeast Correctional
Center (SECC). After reviewing the amended complaint, the
Court finds that it should be partially dismissed.
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.
is confined at SECC. He has bipolar mood disorder. On April
5, 2015, plaintiff advised prison officials that he was
feeling suicidal and homicidal. He asked to be removed from
his cell and to be placed in a suicide cell. The officials
placed him on a restraint bench, where he waited for
seventeen hours to see a mental health provider.
Cynthia Reese, who is a Qualified Mental Health Professional,
interviewed plaintiff, and he told her about his condition.
He says she did not take him seriously, despite his history
of suicide attempts, and she told the officials to return him
to his cell.
April 7, 2015, Reese interviewed him again and he told her he
was depressed, suicidal, and homicidal. He requested to be
immediately removed from his cell.
an hour later, defendants Hancock, Sisk, and Mills removed
everything from plaintiff’s cell and moved his cell
mate to another cell. They brought another inmate to his cell
who was also on full suicide watch. Plaintiff told defendants
he was afraid of having the other inmate in his cell because
of his state of mind. He says defendants laughed and
encouraged the other inmate to assault him.
an hour later, defendant Vandergriff checked
plaintiff’s cell. Plaintiff told Vandergriff that he
“did not feel comfortable in the cell and could he
please pull me out of that cell.” Vandergriff told
plaintiff he would be okay and left him there.
evening, the other inmate punched plaintiff in the back of
the head and fought with him for five to ten minutes.
Plaintiff says he suffered a “brutal” beating.
Mills did an observation check of the cell and sprayed mace
on both inmates. Plaintiff suffered a sprained or fractured
wrist, bruised ribs, and facial injuries.
refused to allow the nurse to assess plaintiff’s
injuries. Prison officials left him on the restraint bench
and eventually placed him in a dry cell without letting him
wash the mace off. He says that was intentional punishment.
Court finds that the complaint should not be dismissed with
regard to plaintiff’s claims against Hancock,
Buchannon, Mills, or Sisk. Therefore, the Court will ...