Yelton v. Warren

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BRETT YELTON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 4:25-cv-01071-MTS
)
ADRIENNE A. WARREN, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), of
pro se Plaintiff Brett Yelton’s First Amended Complaint, Doc. [6]. 	After taking
Plaintiff’s 	well-pleaded 	factual 	allegations 	“as 	true” 	and 	granting 	“all 	reasonable
inferences” in his favor, see Lustgraaf v. Behrens, 619 F.3d 867, 872–73 (8th Cir. 2010),
the Court concludes that he has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
*
While serving a life sentence in Potosi Correctional Center for first degree assault
and abuse of a child,1 Plaintiff’s luncheon in the “chow hall” was ruined when Defendant
Lt. Adrienne Warren insulted Plaintiff, telling him that he was “not a man” but rather was
“a pussy” with “a little dick.” Doc. [6] at 3. Plaintiff alleges that the Lieutenant later had
Plaintiff “fired” from his prison job by writing a conduct violation claiming that it was
Plaintiff who said “multiple profane and inappropriate things” to the Lieutenant, which
1 See State v. Yelton, 12WE-CR00620-01 (Webster Cnty., Mo. Cir. Ct.); see also Stutzka v.
McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 761 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussing judicial notice).
Case: 4:25-cv-01071-MTS Doc. #: 11 Filed: 06/24/26 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
Plaintiff denies. 	Id. 	Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s “actions and words” have had a
“negative effect” on Plaintiff’s “mental health” and “psychological well being.” 	Id.
Even if true, Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
First, Defendant’s alleged taunts, however vulgar and unprofessional, simply do
not amount to a constitutional violation—no matter how much the name calling hurt
Plaintiff’s feelings. 	See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (“Name
calling is not a constitutional violation.”); accord McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1291
n.3 (10th Cir. 2001); Patton v. Przybylski, 822 F.2d 697, 700 (7th Cir. 1987) (Posner, J.).
Second, a prison official’s filing of a false conduct violation against a prisoner does not
violate the Constitution unless it was done in retaliation for certain protected conduct by
the prisoner or unless the prisoner is not provided an opportunity to be heard and to
defend against the allegedly falsified violation. 	See Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450,
452 (8th Cir. 1989); Sanders v. Hobbs, 773 F.3d 186, 190 (8th Cir. 2014); Smith v.
Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641, 654 (3d Cir. 2002) (“[M]ere allegations of falsified evidence or
misconduct reports, without more, are not enough to state a due process claim.” (citing
Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949, 953 (2d Cir. 1986))). 	See also Doc. [6-1] at 2–7
(Plaintiff’s grievance exhibits showing his objections were heard at multiple levels). For
these reasons alone, Plaintiff’s claims fail.
Plaintiff’s action has other problems, though, too. 	Plaintiff has no liberty interest
in his prison job; therefore, his firing could not have violated the Due Process Clause.
See Freitas v. Ault, 109 F.3d 1335, 1338 (8th Cir. 1997); accord James v. Quinlan, 866
F.2d 627, 629 (3d Cir. 1989); Gilbreath v. Clark, 193 F. App’x 741, 743 (10th Cir. 2006).
Case: 4:25-cv-01071-MTS Doc. #: 11 Filed: 06/24/26 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 3 -
And, as to the negative effects Defendant’s alleged conduct supposedly has had on
Plaintiff’s mental health, federal law is clear that prisoners may not bring a civil action
“for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of
physical injury or the commission of a sexual act (as defined in section 2246 of title 18).”
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); see also Royal v. Kautzky, 375 F.3d 720, 723 (8th Cir. 2004).
* 	* 	*
“Not every unfortunate incident that occurs in life, not every discomfort, [and] not
every disagreement among people and/or corporations, gives rise to a cause of action.”
Syed v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., 522 F. Supp. 3d 503, 514 (E.D. Mo. 2021) (quoting Lee v.
Gen. Motors Corp., 950 F. Supp. 170, 175 (S.D. Miss. 1996) (Pickering, J.)). 	This
principle 	applies 	with 	particular 	force 	where 	routine 	prisoner 	gripes 	are 	cast 	as
constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Cf. Gregory v. City of Rogers, 974 F.2d
1006, 1009 (8th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (noting that many harms, even when caused by a
state actor, do not fall within the scope of § 1983, which did not make “the Fourteenth
Amendment into a font of tort law”). For at least the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 	The Court
therefore must dismiss it, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and will enter herewith an Order of
Dismissal doing so.
Dated this 24th day of June 2026.
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01071-MTS Doc. #: 11 Filed: 06/24/26 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>