United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
TERRY L. THOMPSON, Plaintiff,
DARREN YOUNG, WARDEN, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; TROY PONTO, WARDEN, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; STANWICK, WARDEN, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; NICHOLAS ANDERSON, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DIPMANSEN, UNIT-MANAGER, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; LABRIE, UNIT COORDINATOR, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; RILEY DEGROOT, MANAGER; INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MELISSA MARTURAN, ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JENIFER DRIESKI, HEAD - WARDEN DEPUTY; INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; WARDEN ARTHUR ALLCOCK, WARDEN; INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; TIMMERMAN, UNIT-COORDINATOR; INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND DONCLUN, UNIT COORDINATOR; INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Terry L. Thompson, was an inmate at the South Dakota State
Penitentiary in Sioux Falls. He filed a pro se civil rights
complaint under U.S.C. § 1983. Docket 1. The court
granted Thompson leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
Thompson paid his initial partial filing fee. Dockets 6, 22.
The court has now screened Thompson's amended complaint
(Docket 24) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the following
reasons, the court dismisses Thompson's amended
claims defendants disciplined him in retaliation for his
previous lawsuit, Thompson v. Klimek, No.
4:16-CV-04071-KES, 2017 WL 4325789 (D.S.D. Sept. 28, 2017).
Docket 24. Thompson's claims stem from an incident on
January 14, 2018 at the South Dakota State Penitentiary
(SDSP). Id. at 4.
had signed up to call his sister at 9:00 a.m. on January 14,
2018. Id. At 8:30 a.m., Thompson's cell door
opened. Id. Thompson tried to call his sister, but
she did not answer. Id. Thompson then approached
Correctional Officer Nicholas Anderson to check the phone
list because Thompson wanted to try to call his sister again
at 9:00 a.m. Id. Anderson ordered Thompson to return
to his cell and Thompson complied. Id.
later Thompson's cell door opened again, and he went to
talk to Anderson. Id. When Thompson attempted to
talk to Anderson, Anderson ordered Thompson to return to his
cell. Id. On his way back to his cell, Thompson was
upset and swore at Anderson. Id.
minutes later, two officers went to Thompson's cell,
cuffed him, and took him downstairs to speak to a
higher-ranking officer. Id. The higher-ranking
officer served Thompson with a L-7 write-up. Id. at
5. According to the South Dakota Department of Corrections
Inmate Living Guide, an L-7 is the offense of
“insolence-any conduct, acts, or gestures, verbal or
non-verbal, showing disrespect toward any non-inmate or in
reference to any non-inmate.” South Dakota Department
of Corrections, Inmate Living Guide, 18 (Nov. 2018)
Thompson claims he was not allowed to provide his account of
events. Docket 24 at 5.
outside the higher-ranking officer's office, Thompson
told Anderson to “man up a few times” and
attempted to “see what his problems were.”
Id. Thompson claims Anderson was touching him and
jerking him back and forth. Id. Thompson was upset
and asked Anderson not to touch him. Id. Anderson
continued to touch Thompson and Thompson grew more upset.
Thompson repeatedly swore at Anderson and then “jerked
away” from Anderson. Id.
officers then pushed Thompson against a glass window in front
of the kitchen. Id. Thompson grew more upset,
continued to swear at the correctional officers, and felt
like he was being choked. Id. at 6.
Thompson calmed down, the correctional officers escorted
Thompson to the nurse's station to evaluate Thompson.
Id. Thompson claims a correctional officer
“grabbed” his butt. Id. Thompson again
became upset and his “anger shot up sky high.”
Id. Correctional officers executed a take down on
Thompson and “hogg tied” his legs and arms.
Id. Thompson was transferred to the SHU and received
an H-4 write-up. Id. at 7. According to the South
Dakota Department of Corrections Inmate Living Guide, an H-4
is the offense of “assault on staff without serious
injury.” South Dakota Department of Corrections,
Inmate Living Guide, 17.
pleaded guilty to both write-ups. Docket 24 at 8. Thompson
later spoke with Wardens Darren Young, Troy Ponto, Jenifer
Drieske, and Arthur Allcock about dropping the write-ups, but
nothing was done. Id.
court must accept the well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor
of the non-moving party. Schriener v. Quicken Loans,
Inc., 774 F.3d 442, 444 (8th Cir. 2014). Civil rights
and pro se complaints must be liberally construed.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation
omitted); Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835,
839 (8th Cir. 2004). Even with this construction, “a
pro se complaint must contain specific facts supporting its
conclusions.” Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d
1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985); see also Ellis v. City of
Minneapolis, 518 Fed.Appx. 502, 504 (8th Cir. 2013).
Civil rights complaints cannot be merely conclusory.
Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152 (8th Cir. 1993);
Parker v. Porter, 221 Fed.Appx. 481, 482 (8th Cir.
complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations .
. . [but] requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “If a plaintiff cannot make the
requisite showing, dismissal is appropriate.”
Abdullah v. Minnesota, 261 Fed.Appx. 926, 927 (8th
Cir. 2008); see also Beavers v. Lockhart, 755 F.2d
657, 663 (8th Cir. 1985). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
court must screen prisoner complaints and dismiss them if
they “(1) [are] frivolous, malicious, or fail ...