United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MURLIN R. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff,
CORIZON HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SHIRLEY PADMORE MENSAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon review of the amended
complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff, an
inmate at the Southeast Correctional Center
(“SECC”), brings this civil action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Corizon Health, Inc., Rachel
Leijai, Rebecca Patterson, Bruce Hannabrank, and Jason Lewis.
He states he sues the individual defendants in an official
and individual capacity.
to the amended complaint, plaintiff is a disabled inmate who
is housed in SECC's Enhanced Care Unit
(“ECU”). Briefly, plaintiff alleges that, because
he is disabled, he is kept confined to his cell for most of
the day, where he can only sit on his bunk or sleep
excessively. Non-disabled inmates housed in the ECU are not
confined in this manner, and are free to participate in the
prison's programs and activities. His cell is also
smaller than the cells of non-disabled inmates. Plaintiff
qualifies for honor wing status, but cannot have such status
and remain housed in the ECU, while non-disabled inmates
housed in the ECU do not have this restriction. Plaintiff
alleges that he was told that if he requested honor status,
he would have to give up the assistance he needs because of
his disability. Plaintiff characterizes this as being forced
to choose between participating in the programs, activities
and services available at the prison, and having the help he
needs due to his disability. Plaintiff alleges that, because
he is disabled, he has only limited time to shower and use
the telephone, and is not given the chance to engage in the
programs and activities that are available at the prison.
Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual
punishments, ” and requires that prison officials
provide humane conditions of confinement. U.S. Const. amend.
VIII; Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). A
conditions of confinement claim based on prison conditions
requires a showing of: (1) a deprivation of a minimal
civilized measure of life's necessities, and (2)
deliberate indifference by prison officials to those basic
needs. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981).
Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified
individual with a disability shall, by reason of such
disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied
the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a
public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such
entity.” Bahl v. County of Ramsey, 695 F.3d
778, 783 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12132). In
order to state a claim under Title II of the ADA, plaintiff
must allege that (1) he is a qualified individual with a
disability; (2) that he was excluded from participation in or
denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities
of a public entity or was otherwise subjected to
discrimination by a public entity; and (3) that such
exclusion, denial of benefits, or other discrimination was by
reason of his disability. Baribeau v. City of
Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465, 484 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing
Layton v. Elder, 143 F.3d 469, 472 (8th Cir. 1998)).
Title II of the ADA applies to state prisons.
Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524
U.S. 206 (1998), Randolph v. Rogers, 170 F.3d 850,
857-58 (8th Cir. 1999).
construing the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that the
defendants have implemented or adopted policies and/or made
decisions that resulted in him being housed in
unconstitutional and inaccessible conditions. Plaintiff can
also be understood to allege that he is a qualified
individual with a disability who is being denied meaningful
access to the services, programs, or activities of SECC. The
Court therefore concludes, for purposes of initial review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, that the amended
complaint adequately states claims under the Eighth Amendment
and the ADA.
has paid the required civil filing fee in this matter.
Consequently, the Court is not responsible for serving
process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff is
advised that, under Rule 4(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, “[s]ervice may be effected by any
person who is not a party and who is at least 18
years of age.” (Emphasis added.) This means that
plaintiff is not permitted to serve process himself.
should try to find a qualified person to serve process on the
complaint pursuant to Rule 4. If plaintiff cannot do so, then
he may move the Court, at a later date, to effect service of
process. If plaintiff chooses to file such a motion, he must
explain to the Court, in writing, what steps he took to
locate a qualified person to serve process on the complaint,
and why he was unsuccessful.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall
cause service to be effected upon the defendants no
later than 90 days from the date of the filing of the amended
complaint. In absence of good cause shown, failure
to timely serve a defendant shall result in the dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to that defendant, without
 On November 8, 2017, plaintiff paid
the full $400 filing ...