Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Faircloth v. Buccanan

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division

September 2, 2016

CHRISTOPHER FAIRCLOTH, Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN BUCCANAN, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          CAROL E. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, 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.

         Standard of Review

         Under 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.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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 the sink.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff claims that defendants Hurley, Woods, Cutt, and Godert did not properly train the unknown sergeant that read the conduct violation to him.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Finally, plaintiff says that defendants conspired to violate his right to due process by not allowing him to present evidence during the classification hearing.

         Discussion

         The 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.