United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant Alan Earls'
unopposed motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 27). For the
following reasons, the motion will be granted.
plaintiff Mitchell Dunn, a Missouri inmate confined at Potosi
Correctional Center (“PCC”), brings this action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Alan Earls
(“Earls”), Deputy Warden at PCC, arising from his
detention in single-cell administrative segregation.
(Complaint (“Compl.”), Doc. No. 1). Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges he is being held in Administrative
Segregation “for no apparent lawful reason.”
(Id.). Plaintiff asserts that he has already served
in excess of twelve months in administrative segregation for
assault and that the Administrative Segregation Committee
“has gone above the law by holding [him] falsely in
detention when there is no valid reason.”
(Id.). Plaintiff further alleges the Committee
stated that he was never going to be released to the general
population “unless [he] take[s] a program.”
Earls moves for summary judgment on the grounds that
Plaintiff was not deprived of a liberty interest when he was
placed in administrative segregation; that appropriate
procedures for review of his placement were followed; and
that sufficient evidence supported findings that his
placement was appropriate because he presented a risk to the
safety and security of the institution. Earls also argues he
is entitled to summary judgment based on the doctrine of
14, 2014, while incarcerated at South Central Correctional
Center (“SCCC”), Plaintiff was placed in
administrative segregation following a serious assault on his
cellmate. He pled guilty to the assault and was sentenced to
five years to run concurrently with his existing sentence. On
October 9, 2014, Plaintiff was transferred from SCCC to PCC
for safety and security reasons. Upon his arrival, he
received a classification hearing regarding his continued
assignment to administrative segregation and was subsequently
placed in a single-man cell because of his extreme assaultive
behavior towards other offenders (Doc. No. 28-12).
classification status was next reviewed on November 6, 2014,
and continued (Doc. No. 28-5). Following a review of his
classification status on February 5, 2015 (Doc. No. 28-6),
Plaintiff was moved to a two-man cell. Within days, Plaintiff
requested protective custody from his cellmate (Doc. No.
28-7) and was moved back to single-man status “for his
own safety or that of others” and “for the
security and good order of the institution”
(Id.; Doc. No. 28-22). On March 11, 2015, Plaintiff
was again moved to a double-man cell (Doc. Nos. 28-8, 28-22).
That same day, Plaintiff indicated that he wished to be
removed from the cell, and that if he were not removed, he
would harm his cellmate. Plaintiff received a conduct
violation for this threat. (Doc. Nos. 28-8, 28-23). He was
moved to another double-man cell, but on March 12, 2015,
requested protective custody from his new cellmate, and moved
back to a single-man cell “for the security and good
order of the institution.” (Doc. No. 28-10).
April 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Informal Resolution
Request (“IRR”) alleging he had been promised
that he would be released into the general population (Doc.
No. 28-11). In response to Plaintiff's IRR, Case Manager
Tim McFarland indicated that Deputy Division Director Dwayne
Kempker had placed Plaintiff on a single cell mandate due to
his determination that Plaintiff was a long term threat to
other offenders and denied his request for immediate release
from Administrative Segregation (Doc. No. 28-14).
5, 2015, Plaintiff's classification status was again
reviewed. The Committee noted that on March 11, 2015,
Plaintiff received a conduct violation regarding the threat
to his cell mate, and ordered him to continue his assignment,
accrue no violations, and treat staff appropriately (Doc. No.
filed a grievance in response to the resolution of his IRR on
June 8, 2015, alleging he was being held in Administrative
Segregation for an excessive period and requesting that he be
released back into the population (Doc. No. 28-15). PCC
Warden Cindy Griffith responded that his assignment was being
reviewed in accordance with established policy and that based
on his behavioral history, Administrative Segregation was
appropriate (Doc. No. 28-16). Plaintiff appealed this
response (Doc. No. 28-17).
Plaintiff's August 8, 2015 classification hearing, the
Committee ordered him to continue his assignment, accrue no
violations, and to treat staff appropriately (Doc. No.
28-18). On September 10, 2015, the Deputy Division Director
reviewed and denied Plaintiff's grievance appeal, citing
the severe injury to Plaintiff's cellmate at SCCC for his
finding that it was in the interest of the safety and
security of the institution to keep Plaintiff in
administrative segregation (Doc. No. 28-19).
November 3, 2015 and January 26, 2016, Plaintiff's
classification status was again reviewed and continued with
the same conditions (Doc. Nos. 28-20, -21). On May 24, 2016,
Plaintiff was moved to a two man cell (Id. at ¶
16), and released from administrative segregation on July 12,
(Doc. No. 28-22).