Johnson v. Clark
| Decision Date | 22 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 4:21-CV-39 RLW |
| Parties | JEFFREY L.G. JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JUDGE STEPHEN R. CLARK, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on several motions to dismiss and other various motions. These matters are fully briefed and ready for disposition. The Court dismisses Plaintiffs' Complaint in its entirety.
On January 6, 2021, pro se Plaintiffs Jeffrey L.G. Johnson Jerry A. Johnson, and Joseph Johnson (collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiffs”) paid the filing fee and filed a Complaint, alleging various state and federal constitutional violations, civil rights violations, as well as claims for conspiracy, fraud, and kidnapping. (ECF No. 1). This is the seventh action filed by Plaintiffs together separately, or with other plaintiffs. See Johnson v United States, No. 4:20-CV-00679 SRC, 2020 WL 3250072 (E.D. Mo. June 16, 2020); Johnson v. United States No. 19-CV-2328-SRC (E.D. Mo. Dec. 19, 2019), Johnson v. United States, No. 4:19-cv-1694-ERW, Johnson v. United States, No. 4:12-CV-2155-AGF (E.D. Mo. Dec. 12, 2012), Johnson v. United States, 4:12-CV-896-JAR (E.D. Mo. May 23, 2012), Johnson v. Obama, No. 4:10-CV-2303-RWS (E.D. Mo. Dec. 14, 2010), Johnson v. Astrue, No. 4:10-CV-497-CAS/FRB (E.D. Mo. Nov. 23, 2010. In Plaintiffs' prior litigation, they alleged many high-level government officials were involved in conspiracies to deprive Plaintiff Joseph Johnson of his social security benefits.
In the instant action, Plaintiffs appear to be again challenging the 2010 decision in Johnson v. Astrue, 4:10-CV-497-CAS (E.D. Mo.), which allowed the Social Security Administration (SSA) to collect overpayments made to Plaintiff Joseph Johnson. Plaintiffs allege that the federal defendants, State Court judges, and litigants in the prior actions conspired to remove Plaintiffs' prior petition from Missouri State Court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in order to deny Plaintiffs the opportunity to re-litigate Judge Shaw's 2010 decision in State Court. Plaintiffs' allegations also relate to Plaintiff Jerry Johnson's continued civil commitment.
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a pleading to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates the dismissal of a claim if there has been a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp., v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” will not suffice. Id. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Denise Thomas is the General Counsel, Mark Stringer is the director, and Laurent Javois is the regional executive officer for the Missouri Department of Mental Health (“MDMH”). Defendant Eric Schmitt is the Attorney General of Missouri.
On September 19, 1977, Plaintiff Jerry Johnson was acquitted of a criminal charge filed against him on the grounds of mental disease of defect by the St. Louis City Circuit Court. (ECF No. 1-2 at 19). The St. Louis City Circuit Court ordered him into MDMH custody at the Fulton State Hospital in Fulton, Missouri. (Id.) On April 25, 2016, Plaintiff Jerry Johnson was granted a conditional release without discharge by the St. Louis City Circuit Court. (ECF No. 1-2 at 22). The St. Louis City Circuit Court later amended that release to be a conditional release with discharge on February 18, 2018. (Id.) On March 5, 2020, Defendant Javois, regional executive officer at MDMH, applied to the St. Louis City Circuit Court to amend and extend Plaintiff Jerry Johnson's conditional release. (Id.) On April 25, 2020, the St. Louis City Circuit Court granted Defendant Javois's application on several conditions, including that Plaintiff Jerry Johnson live in a residential care facility, follow all rules and regulations of that facility, permit MDMH personnel to enter, monitor and inspect his residence, and participate in structured activities. (ECF No. 1-2 at 24-28).
“Ordinarily, in addressing a motion to dismiss, the Court would analyze the complaint count by count, stating the elements of the causes of action, and then determining whether the plaintiff alleged ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Johnson v. United States, No. 4:19-CV-2328 SRC, 2019 WL 6910050, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 19, 2019) (quoting Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009)) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). In this case, as with their prior cases, “[Plaintiffs' complaint alleges so few facts, as opposed to legal conclusions, recitation of legal jargon, and allegations so fantastic or delusional that they rise to the level of the irrational and wholly incredible, that the Court declines to address each purported count separately.” Johnson v. United States, 2019 WL 6910050, at *4: see Glick v. W. Power Sports, Inc., 944 F.3d 714, 718 (8th Cir. 2019)(citing Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) ()). Thus, the Court holds that Plaintiffs' pleadings are largely indecipherable and fail to state a discernable cause of action. Accordingly, the Court holds that Plaintiffs fail to properly state a cause of action against Denise Thomas, Mark Stringer, Laurent Javois, and the Honorable Eric Schmitt. See Johnson v. United States, No. 4:20-CV-00679 SRC, 2020 WL 3250072, at *4 (E.D. Mo. June 16, 2020).
In addition, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim because a motion for habeas corpus is the only means by which to challenge the length or validity of a civil commitment. Plaintiffs' claims for habeas relief are not properly brought as a Section 1983 claim.[1] Plaintiffs purport to join their claims with a “writ of habeas corpus” based upon Plaintiff Jerry A. Johnson's “indefinite detention custody of the Missouri Dep't of Mental Health.” (ECF No. 1 at 16; see also ECF No. 1 at 27 (asserting Defendants “conspired to suspend petitioner's writ of habeas corpus ... action at law for fraud”)). The Court holds that Plaintiffs' habeas claims are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490 (1973) (“Congress has determined that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for state prisoners attacking the validity of the fact or length of their confinement, and that specific determination must override the general terms of 1983.”). The Court dismisses Plaintiffs' Complaint to the extent it attempt to allege a habeas action as a Section 1983 action.
Further, and to the extent that Plaintiffs attempt to bring their claims as a habeas action, those claims fail because Plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies. To challenge his state conviction or sentence to confinement in federal court, Plaintiffs must petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 501. Before seeking federal habeas relief, Plaintiffs must exhaust all adequate and available state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982); Powell v. Wyrick, 657 F.2d 222 (8th Cir.1981). The state courts must have an opportunity to review the merits of Plaintiffs' contentions and must be given primary responsibility in their own criminal cases. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963); Tyler v. Swenson, 527 F.2d 877 (8th Cir.1976). Plaintiffs do not allege that Plaintiff Jerry Johnson, or any of the other Plaintiffs, exhausted his/their state administrative remedies prior to bringing this lawsuit. Plaintiffs do not allege that there are no Missouri remedies available to them.[2] As an additional basis, the Court dismisses the Complaint for failure to exhaust Plaintiffs' administrative remedies.
Thus, the Court grants Defendants Denise Thomas, Mark Stringer, Laurent Javois, and the Honorable Eric Schmitt's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (ECF No. 23) in full.
Defendants the Honorable Rex Burlison and the Honorable Christopher McGraugh are circuit judges in the 22nd Judicial Circuit, State of Missouri. Defendant Thomas Kloeppinger is the circuit clerk of the 22nd Judicial Circuit.
Plaintiffs accuse Judge Burlison and Judge McGraugh of engaging in fraud, along with the City of St. Louis, to allow the City of St. Louis to remove their prior litigation, case no 2022-cc00594, to federal court (where it was filed as 4:20-cv-00679). (Compl., ¶ 25). Plaintiffs also allege that Judge Burlison and Judge McGraugh “suspended petitioner's writ of habeas corpus [and] denied petitioner of his substantive right to Due...
To continue reading
Request your trial