United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the motion to dismiss, filed
by defendants Cindy Griffith, Will Hunter and Rick
Menteer. Plaintiff has responded to the motion
seeking assistance of counsel in this matter. For the reasons
discussed below, the motion will be denied.
Standard on a Motion to Dismiss
purpose of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. To survive
a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, "a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim for relief
"must include sufficient factual information to provide
the 'grounds' on which the claim rests, and to raise
a right to relief above a speculative level."
Schaafv. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544,
549 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
& n.3). This obligation requires a plaintiff to plead
"more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
considering a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true
all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint,
even if it appears that "actual proof of those facts is
improbable," id. at 556, and reviews the
complaint to determine whether its allegations show that the
pleader is entitled to relief. Id. at 555-56;
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The principle that a court must accept
as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint does
not apply to legal conclusions, however. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 ("Threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice"). In addition, all reasonable inferences
from the complaint must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving
party. Young v. City of St. Charles, Mo., 244 F.3d
623, 627 (8th Cir. 2001).
is currently an inmate at the Potosi Correctional Center. He
filed this action on September 18, 2017, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against thirty-seven (37) named defendants
in both their individual and official capacities. The Court
reviewed plaintiffs handwritten complaint on January 23,
2018, for frivolousness, maliciousness and for failure to
state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and issued
process on four claims against four separate defendants in
this action. Notably, the Court issued process on Warden
Cindy Griffith, Chief of Custody Greg Dunn, and Shift
Commanders Will Hunter and Rick Menteer with respect to two
complaint, plaintiff alleges that on or about January 25,
2016, he was placed in a single-man cell in the
Administrative Segregation unit in PCC. Plaintiff states that
he has been in the cell from January 2016, through the
present, and he states that he "has no contact with the
offender general population and rarely exits his cell, except
for searches, three hours [per week] of recreation in the
in-house recreation cages and medical."
asserts that on January 25, 2016, an unknown person at the
prison issued a "security order" against plaintiff
mandating he be placed in leg shackles and restraints when
leaving his Administrative Segregation cell.
claims that Cindy Griffith (Warden) and Greg Dunn (Chief of
Custody), amended the special security order on August 10,
2016, pursuant to an "evil intent" requiring
correctional officers who took plaintiff from his cell on a
daily basis, to restrain plaintiff by "hinged
handcuffs," leg shackles," and "elbow
claims that Griffith and Dunn amended the security order on
February 21, 2017, pursuant to an "evil intent,"
requiring mechanical restraints of leg shackles, and arm
restraints, as well as physical pat down searches and cell
and property searches three times a day. Plaintiff asserts
that this order was modified by defendants Griffith and Dunn
on February 23, 2017, to include body cavity searches as well
three times daily, and plaintiff claims that this was a
result of "collusion" by Shift Commanders Rick
Menteer and Will Hunter.
claims that on March 1, 2017, Griffith and Dunn placed
plaintiff in a suicide cell in violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights, in an effort to humiliate and increase his
mental pain and suffering.
admits that he was told that the reason he was first placed
in Administrative Segregation and the security measures were
increased was because in February 2017 plaintiff had been
found guilty of assault. Moreover, the prison officials
believed that plaintiff was "green lighting" a hit
on other offenders.
remainder of plaintiff s complaint outlines paragraphs
against individual correctional officers who carried out the
directions of Griffith and Dunn and failed to respond to
plaintiffs verbal and ...