United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
E. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this
civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed
plaintiff's financial information, the Court assesses a
partial initial filing fee of $30, which is twenty percent of
his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b). Additionally, this action is 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.
alleges that, due to overcrowding at the Northeast
Correctional Center (NECC), he was required to “share
an unsecured communal bathroom with eleven (11) other inmates
. . .” At the entrance to the bathroom was a clear
shower curtain that allowed the other inmates to look into
the bathroom. He asserts that the correctional officers in
“the bubble” could not see into the bathroom.
says that defendant Buccanan issued him a conduct violation
for sexual misconduct, that is, for masturbating in the
bathroom. He claims she could not have seen into the
bathroom, and therefore, could not have known what he was
doing there. And he says he was only washing his clothes in
alleges that an unknown sergeant read the conduct violation
to him. He says the sergeant violated his rights because he
did not give plaintiff a Miranda warning.
claims defendants Woods and Cutt found him guilty of the
misconduct during a classification hearing. He says they did
not follow prison policy, and he complains that they did not
allow him to produce any evidence at the hearing. They
assigned him to administrative segregation for thirty days.
claims that defendants Hurley, Woods, Cutt, and Godert did
not properly train the unknown sergeant that read the conduct
violation to him.
says defendants did not process his conduct violation within
seven days, which is required by the prison policy. He
believes this is felony misconduct on their part.
plaintiff says that defendants conspired to violate his right
to due process by not allowing him to present evidence during
the classification hearing.
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. For the Fourteenth Amendment's due process
clause to be implicated, an inmate subjected to segregation
must have been subjected to “atypical and significant
hardship . . . in relation to the ordinary incidents of
prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472
(1995). Plaintiff's allegations do not indicate that he
has suffered the type of atypical and significant hardship
which might conceivably create a liberty interest.
Id. at 485-86 (no atypical and significant ...