United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division
TERRY G. WATSON, Plaintiff,
GEORGE LOMBARDI, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY 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 $54, which is twenty percent of
his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. §
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, 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.
reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. Furthermore, the
Court liberally construes the allegations.
brings this action against George Lombardi, the Director of
the Missouri Department of Corrections, and the Missouri
Board of Probation and Parole. On February 29, 2012, a jury
convicted plaintiff on several counts of statutory rape,
statutory sodomy, and incest. Missouri v. Watson,
No. 10JE-CR03225-01 (Jefferson County). To be eligible for
conditional release, the Missouri Department of Corrections
requires him to complete the Missouri Sexual Offender Program
(“MOSOP”). Plaintiff refuses to do so because it
requires him to admit to the sexual offenses, which he
believes violates his right against self-incrimination. He
argues that the denial of conditional release violates his
rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
prison clinical rehabilitation program, which is acknowledged
to bear a rational relation to a legitimate penological
objective, does not violate the privilege against
self-incrimination if the adverse consequences an inmate
faces for not participating are related to the program
objectives and do not constitute atypical and significant
hardships in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison
life.” McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 37-38
(2002). The Missouri courts have consistently held that
completion of MOSOP “furthers the legitimate
penological objective of rehabilitating sex offenders and
reducing their risk of recidivism.” Spencer v.
Missouri, 334 S.W.3d 559, 572 (Mo.Ct.App. 2010). Failure
to comply with the requirements of MOSOP does not extend a
sex offender's sentence. It is only one of the
requirements to be eligible for conditional release. However,
plaintiff does not have a liberty interest in parole.
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional
Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979) (“There is no
constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be
conditionally released before the expiration of a valid
sentence.”); Dace v. Mickelson, 816 F.2d 1277,
1280-81 (8th Cir. 1987). As a result, plaintiffs allegations
fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and
this action must be dismissed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in
forma pauperis [ECF No 2] is GRANTED
FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing
fee of $54 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to
“Clerk, United States District Court, ” and to
include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration
number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is
for an original proceeding.
FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for extension of ...