United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. COLLINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Christopher Taylor,
II's (“Plaintiff”) “Request for Leave
of Court to Amend Complaint/Pleading and to Add Supplemental
Attachments” (Doc. 12). At the direction of the Court,
Defendant filed a response (Doc. 14). The parties have
consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §
636(c) (Doc. 11). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's
request will be DENIED.
April 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed this pro se civil
action pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional
Officer Cole Hansens (“Defendant”) in his
official and individual capacities (Doc. 1). The facts in
Plaintiff's complaint as addressed in this Court's
prior order are as follows. Plaintiff alleges that on
November 13, 2018, he was an inmate at Southeast Correctional
Center (SECC), assigned to unit #2 in administrative
segregation. Officer Hansens and Officer Riley Johnson were
conducting showers on this day. Officer Johnson came to
plaintiff's cell and asked him if he wanted to take a
shower. Plaintiff responded by telling Officer Hansens that
plaintiff and Officer Johnson had “had a situation on
November 11, 2018, ” and that plaintiff felt
uncomfortable with Officer Johnson placing him in the shower.
Hansens opened plaintiffs food port and placed him in wrist
restraints, with a leash connected to the handcuffs.
Plaintiff states that Officer Hansens then took him to the
showers. He states that he was in the shower for ten minutes.
While drying off, plaintiff states that he saw Officer
Hansens and Officer Johnson in his cell. He was told by
another offender that Officer Johnson was in his bed, on the
advised Officer Hansens that he was done with his shower and
ready to return to his cell. Officer Hansens replied that he
would have Officer Johnson take him back if plaintiff kept
rushing. Officer Hansens also asked plaintiff if he had a
“celly.” Plaintiff responded that he did not. He
was subsequently placed back into wrist restraints and
escorted back to his cell.
asked Officer Hansens why Officer Johnson had been in his
bed. Officer Hansens answered that “he didn't know
and didn't care.” While approaching his cell,
plaintiff states that he saw pictures scattered about and
some recent mail destroyed. Plaintiff told Officer Hansens
that he wanted to speak to a sergeant and that he would not
step into his cell “until this matter is taken care
of.” Plaintiff alleges that Officer Hansens pushed him
inside the cell and “yanked the leash” that was
connected to the handcuffs. This forced plaintiffs hands and
arms through the food port, causing him pain. He pulled back
on his arms and again asked to speak to a sergeant. Officer
Hansens allegedly responded by yanking him through the food
port again. Next, plaintiff claims that Officer Hansens
sprayed him in the face with pepper spray, which went into
his eyes and mouth.
Stephanie Noisworthy arrived and asked for an explanation.
Plaintiff attempted to tell her that he was “calling
for a white shirt” when Officer Hansens threw him
inside his cell and pepper sprayed him for no reason. He
advised Sergeant Noisworthy that he could not breathe and was
feeling suicidal because of the pepper spray. Sergeant
Noisworthy and Officer Damien Culbertson escorted plaintiff
from his cell to a bench. As he exited the cell, plaintiff
states that he began spitting on the ground due to the pepper
spray. He states that his face felt as though it “was
falling off and that he was having trouble breathing.
Plaintiff was seated on the bench in full restraints, with
his hands and feet secured. At that point, Officer Hansens
walked up behind him, wrapped his arm around his neck, and
began choking him. According to plaintiff, Sergeant
Noisworthy gave Officer Hansens three directives to stop
choking him. Eventually, Officer Hansens complied.
Stewart arrived and escorted plaintiff to housing unit #1,
where he was allowed to rinse his face but not take a shower.
He was assigned to a suicide cell, where he was later found
unresponsive by Officer Lynch and taken to see the nurse. The
nurse took his vitals and documented his injuries, including
a red mark around his neck and bruising along his side and
right arm. Plaintiff alleges that ever since the incident
occurred, Officer Hansens “comes around ... [once] in a
while to harass [him] by stating [that] sometimes
[correctional officers] have to beat offenders to get [a]
claims that Officer Hansens' actions constituted the use
of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He
also asserts that Officer Hansens violated his right to due
process under the Fourteenth Amendment by “writing a
false conduct violation” that resulted in plaintiff
receiving a further sixty days in administrative segregation.
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Officer Hansens from further
physical violence and threats toward him. He also requests
$100, 000 in compensatory damages and $25, 000 in punitive
24, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's official
capacity claim against Defendant (Doc. 4). The Court also
granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
and directed the Clerk of Court to issue process on Defendant
in his individual capacity (Id.). Defendant filed
his answer on August 23, 2019 and a Case Management Order was
entered in this case on August 29, 2019 (Docs. 9, 10).
Relevant to the current request, the Case Management Order
set a September 27, 2019 deadline for motions for joinder of
additional parties or amendment of the pleadings (Doc. 10).
September 23, 2019,  Plaintiff filed his current request in
which Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to include
additional facts concerning the capacity and roll of
Defendant, specifically as it relates to his job capacity and
authority, in an attempt to raise a claim against Defendant
in his official capacity (Doc. 12 at 1). Plaintiff also
requests leave to add as defendants Anne Precythe, Director
of Corrections, and Alana Boyles, Director, Division of Adult
Institutions, in light of their role in supervising and
hiring employees at the Missouri Department of Corrections
(Id. at 2).
Court should freely give leave to amend a pleading when
justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Notwithstanding
Rule 15, parties do not have an absolute right to amend their
pleadings even under this liberal standard. Sherman v.
Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 715 (8th Cir.
2008). “A district court appropriately denies the
movant leave to amend if there are compelling reasons such as
undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive, repeated failure
to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue
prejudice to the non-moving party, or futility of the
amendment.” Id. The determination as to
whether to grant ...