Joevalis Lawrence Johnson v. Gregory Handcock, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri screened a pro se prisoner’s amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The court allowed an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim and a Missouri negligence claim to proceed against Sergeant Unknown Fearless in his individual capacity, while dismissing the remaining claims and defendants. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions for appointed counsel and for inmate-account relief or record correction as specified in the order.

Holdings

1. Johnson plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Sergeant Fearless in his individual capacity by alleging that Fearless knew Austin was designated as an enemy, nevertheless ordered the placement, and was followed shortly thereafter by Austin's violent attack.
2. Johnson's allegations also plausibly stated a Missouri negligence claim against Sergeant Fearless in his individual capacity.
3. Johnson failed to state claims against Officers Smith and Hayden because he did not allege facts showing their personal involvement in the housing decision or its enforcement.
4. Johnson failed to state individual-capacity § 1983 claims against Warden Handcock and Director Lewis because he did not allege their personal participation in the cell placement, failure to protect, or another constitutional violation.
5. Johnson failed to state a plausible retaliation claim because he did not allege that a named defendant took adverse action because he filed a grievance or that protected activity was a motivating factor in the challenged decision.
6. Johnson's official-capacity claims were dismissed because an official-capacity suit is treated as a suit against the governmental entity, the State of Missouri is not a person subject to § 1983 damages liability, and the Eleventh Amendment bars damages claims absent waiver or valid abrogation.
7. The Ex parte Young exception did not permit Johnson's requested prospective relief because he did not plausibly allege an ongoing constitutional violation attributable to a state official.
8. Appointment of counsel was not warranted at that stage and was denied without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Johnson plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Sergeant Fearless.
2. Whether Johnson plausibly stated a Missouri negligence claim arising from the cell placement and ensuing attack.
3. Whether Johnson stated § 1983 claims against Officers Smith and Hayden based on their alleged involvement.
4. Whether Johnson stated individual-capacity supervisory or retaliation claims against Warden Handcock and Director Lewis.
5. Whether Johnson's official-capacity claims were barred because the State of Missouri and its officials were not proper § 1983 defendants and were protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
6. Whether Johnson plausibly alleged an ongoing constitutional violation permitting prospective relief under Ex parte Young.
7. Whether appointment of counsel was warranted.
8. Whether Johnson's motions regarding his inmate account statement and correction of the record were moot.

Disposition

other