Davis-Bey v. Bellefontaine Neighbors Police Dep't
| Decision Date | 21 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:20-cv-00213-JAR,4:20-cv-00213-JAR |
| Parties | JADA DAVIS-BEY, Plaintiff, v. BELLEFONTAINE NEIGHBORS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of self-represented litigant Jada Davis-Bey for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. (Docket No. 14). Having reviewed the motion, the Court finds that it should be granted. Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To state a claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a "mere possibility of misconduct." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw upon judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679. The court must "accept as true the facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8 Cir. 2016). See also Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73 (8th Cir. 2016) ().
When reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give it the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A "liberal construction" means that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, the district court should construe the plaintiff's complaint in a way that permits his or her claim to be considered within the proper legal framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). However, even pro se complaints are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980). See also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (). In addition, affording a pro se complaint the benefit of a liberal construction does not mean that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation must be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who filed a civil action with this Court on February 6, 2020. (Docket No. 1). The original complaint named fourteen separate defendants. Along with the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 2; Docket No. 3). The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was on a Court-provided form, but plaintiff answered all the required financial questions with the phrase: "Private Information." The motion for appointment of counsel was also on a Courtform. However, the form had been altered to read: "[Plaintiff] hereby reserve[s] the right to appoint my own consul." Both motions were signed, and both included a red fingerprint.
On February 18, 2020, plaintiff submitted a number of exhibits, including medical records, a rental agreement from Grand Slam Storage Center, and a lengthy document titled "Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury," which purported to be a writ of mandamus directed at all county sheriffs. (Docket No. 5).
Subsequently, plaintiff filed four separate documents with the Court on March 9, 2020. First, there was a civil complaint form titled "Amended Claim." (Docket No. 7). This appeared to be the same document filed as Docket No. 1, with the exception that on the caption page, plaintiff had written "Amended Claim" and scratched out the word "Complaint," replacing it with "Claim." Second, there was another motion to appoint counsel on a Court-provided form. (Docket No. 8). Once again, plaintiff had altered the form motion so that it read: "[Plaintiff] hereby reserve[s] the right to appoint my own consul." Plaintiff also filed a second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket No. 9). As before, plaintiff responded to all the financial questions by writing "Private Information." Finally, plaintiff sent in another packet of exhibits, including a Grand Slam Storage Center rental agreement, a Bellefontaine Neighbors Police Department Incident Report, and handwritten notes. (Docket No. 10).
On July 23, 2020, the Court denied plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis because plaintiff had not provided any of the financial information required to determine indigency. (Docket No. 12). The Court further determined that plaintiff's complaint was subject to dismissal because she had not provided "a short and plain statement of the claim showing" that she was entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Since plaintiff was a self-represented litigant, the Court gave her the opportunity to file an amended complaint, and provided instructions on howto do so. The Court also directed plaintiff to either file an appropriate motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or to pay the required filing fee. Plaintiff was given thirty days in which to comply.
On August 5, 2020, plaintiff submitted an amended complaint (Docket No. 13) and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 14).
As noted above, plaintiff's initial motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis were denied because plaintiff did not provide any of the required information. Specifically, she answered the questions in the form motion by stating "Private Information." In ordering plaintiff to either provide an appropriate motion or pay the filing fee, the Court noted that in forma pauperis status is a matter of privilege, not of right. Williams v. McKenzie, 834 F.2d 152, 154 (8th Cir. 1987). To enjoy the statute's benefits, a plaintiff has to demonstrate that, because of her poverty, she cannot pay for the litigation costs and still be able to provide for the necessities of life. See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The determination of whether to grant or deny in forma pauperis status under § 1915 is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Lee v. McDonald's Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 458 (8th Cir. 2000).
In the instant motion, plaintiff has answered the relevant financial questions. She has also signed the motion. Having reviewed the information presented by plaintiff, the Court finds that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted.
Plaintiff's amended complaint lists sixteen separate defendants:1 (1) Bellefontaine Neighbors Police Department; (2) Bud Feldt; (3) Jeffers; (4) Lalumanier; (5) Rea; (6) Rayford; (7)Neff; (8) Spieler; (9) Sheriff Jim Buckles; (10) Laumeier; (11) Dispatch Unit Number 6D13; (12) St. Louis County Government; (13) City of Bellefontaine Neighbors Government; (14) St. Louis County Sheriff's Office; (15) Prosecutor William Clark; and (16) Lakebrink. (Docket No. 13 at 2-5, 9-10).
Plaintiff asserts that the Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to Article 20 and 21 of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce of 1787 between the United States and the Moroccan Empire; 18 U.S.C. § 241;2 and 18 U.S.C. § 242.3 (Docket No. 13 at 6). She further states that the Court has diversity jurisdiction because she is a citizen of "Morocco, Moroccan Empire [Ancient] Amexem."
Due to the conclusory nature of the pleadings, as well as plaintiff's idiosyncratic descriptions of the defendants, such as labeling certain individuals as "policy enforcer[s]," the "Statement of Claim" can be difficult to comprehend. To the best of the Court's understanding, however, plaintiff's amended complaint arises from an incident on September 9, 2019, when plaintiff was removed from the premises at 9631 Cutler Drive by law enforcement officers pursuant to an eviction order issued by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County.4
Plaintiff begins her "Statement of Claim" by alleging that on September 9, 2019, at approximately 10:58 a.m., the Bellefontaine Neighbors Police Department "failed to supervise their employees when a false, fraudulent, [fictitious] police report was issued for a stolen firearm." (Docket No. 13 at 11). She further states that the Bellefontaine Neighbors Police Department failed to prevent its employees from using its equipment to "create...said instrument, in concert with all of the other named defendant(s)." Plaintiff also asserts that Sheriff Buckles "had no [lawful] reason to knock on [her] door," and that the Bellefontaine Neighbors Police Department failed to supervise "Policy Enforcement Officer Rayford from acting in concert with a[n] unknown European" who knocked on plaintiff's door, grabbed her wrists, pulled her over the threshold, secured her wrists, and took a .38 caliber handgun from her holster. (Docket No. 13 at 12).
With regard to Bud Feldt,5 plaintiff states that Deputy Feldt acted "in concert with the Bellefontaine Police Department [and] called in a false police report and made false statement(s)" regarding a stolen firearm. (Docket No. 13 at 12, 19). Plaintiff states that Deputy Feldt did this to give Sheriff Buckles "a lawful...
To continue reading
Request your trial