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.

McCauley v. Fields

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

March 21, 2018

JERRY McCAULEY, Plaintiff,
v.
JEROME FIELDS, et. al., Defendants.

          OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 30]. Plaintiff opposes the motion and has filed a written response thereto, to which Defendant has filed a reply. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion will be granted.

         Facts and Background

         Local Rule 7-401(E) provides:

Rule 7 - 4.01 Motions and Memoranda.
(E) A memorandum in support of a motion for summary judgment shall have attached a statement of uncontroverted material facts, set forth in a separately numbered paragraph for each fact, indicating whether each fact is established by the record, and, if so, the appropriate citations. Every memorandum in opposition shall include a statement of material facts as to which the party contends a genuine issue exists. Those matters in dispute shall be set forth with specific references to portions of the record, where available, upon which the opposing party relies. The opposing party also shall note for all disputed facts the paragraph number from movant's listing of facts. All matters set forth in the statement of the movant shall be deemed admitted for purposes of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the opposing party.

         Defendant has, in accordance with the Court's Local Rule, submitted a Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts, which is supported by references to the record. Although Plaintiff has filed a response to Defendant's Statement, he fails to support his denials with any specific references to admissible evidence in the record. Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7-401(E) of this Court's Local Rules, Defendant's facts are therefore deemed admitted.

         Plaintiff alleges in his Amended Complaint that the conditions of confinement at the St. Louis City Justice Center (“SLCJC”) and the St. Louis Medium Security Institution (“MSI”) violated his rights. He brings this action against correctional officers. He sues defendants in their individual and official capacities.

         Plaintiff alleges that defendants[1] retaliated against him pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for filing complaints by transferring him from MSI to SLCJC.

         At all relevant times Weber was a constituency services officer with the City of St. Louis Division of Corrections (“Division”). In that position Weber was responsible for responding to informal resolution requests and formal grievances submitted by inmates in the custody of the Division. Weber was assigned to and worked in the Constituency Services Unit (“CSU”) at the Division's Medium Security Institution (“MSI”). MSI is one of two jails operated by the Division. The other is the St. Louis City Justice Center (“SLCJC”). MSI is a medium security detention facility and SLCJC is a maximum security detention facility. Fields was the Unit Manager at MSI.

         An inmate's “custody level” is the level of supervision and security an inmate requires, and it affects whether the inmate is held at MSI or SLCJC. Inmate custody level assessment and the determination of whether an inmate will be assigned to MSI or the St. Louis City Justice Center (“SLCJC”) is the responsibility of Classification Manager Warren Thomas. Fields did not have the authority to change an inmate's custody level and did not have the authority to transfer an inmate from MSI to SLCJC. Weber does not have the authority to transfer inmates from MSI to SLCJC.

         During his initial intake process, Plaintiff was not asked whether or not he was on probation/parole supervision.

         On July 23, 2014, Plaintiff was transferred to MSI. On July 28, 2014, parole officer Angela Laster faxed a Missouri Department of Corrections Board of Probation and Parole Warrant to the City of St. Louis Sheriff's Department. An officer of the Sheriff's Department added a “parole hold” to the Division's electronic Integrated Jail Management System (“IJMS”).

         On June 15, 2015, Weber received a letter from Plaintiff that complained of, among other things, the conditions at MSI. On June 22, 2015, Weber met with Plaintiff in his office to discuss Plaintiff's ...


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.