United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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.
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
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.
alleges that defendants retaliated against him pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for filing complaints by transferring him
from MSI to SLCJC.
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.
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.
his initial intake process, Plaintiff was not asked whether
or not he was on probation/parole supervision.
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
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 ...