United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
LAWRENCE M. EDWARDS, Plaintiff,
TOM VILLMER, et al, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs amended
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). After review, the
Court finds that the complaint 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.
brings this action against several officials at the
Farmington Correctional Center (FCC) and the Eastern
Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center (ERDCC).
Plaintiff brings causes of action for retaliation, denial of
access to the courts, and denial of equal protection of the
alleges that, while he was confined in the Farmington
Correctional Center (FCC), defendants Wendy Dasher and Tom
Baxley retaliated against him for filing grievances against
him by issuing false conduct violations, assigning him to a
housing unit for aggressive and intimidating inmates, taking
away his privileges, and placing him in administrative
says defendants Dasher and James Ford retaliated against him
by firing him from his dorm worker job and assigning him to
main production. Plaintiff had a medical lay-in for light
work because he has partial paralysis. Plaintiff claims a
nurse told Ford to return plaintiff to his dorm worker job
because of his lay-in but that Ford refused to do so. He says
Ford barred him from talking to the grievance officer by
issuing a false conduct violation against him and taking his
personal property, for which he had a receipt.
says defendant Julie Smith held a classification hearing and
kept him in administrative segregation for an unspecified
period of time. His retaliation claims against her are
March 12, 2015, plaintiff got married. During the ceremony,
defendant Astra Parker took a camera away from an inmate and
"took unwanted pictures of Plaintiffs wedding
ceremony." The photos were not released to him for some
time, but plaintiff got them at some point and attached
copies of them as exhibits to the complaint.
alleges that Parker issued a false conduct violation against
him for being argumentative with prison staff. He says
defendant James Bezner assigned him to administrative
segregation as a result. His retaliation claims related to
these incidents are conclusory.
was informed by defendant Bill Boyer that plaintiffs wife
could not visit both him and his brother at the same time. He
says this is contrary to prison policy.
August 2015, plaintiff and his attorney were attempting to
have him transferred to another facility. Plaintiff alleges
that defendants Leslie Semar and Robert Gould wanted him to
sign an enemy waiver. These allegations are incoherent,
however. Plaintiff told them he could not attend the Missouri
Sexual Offender Program (MOSOP) at the Eastern Reception
Diagnostic and Correctional Center, although he later
attended MOSOP there. Plaintiff elected to stay at FCC to
September 17, 2015, plaintiff was reclassified as a
non-aggressive offender. On October 1, 2015, defendants Gould
and Michael White told plaintiff he would be transferred to
ERDCC to attend MOSOP. However, on October 13, ...