Jones v. Slay

• Decision Date: 18 November 2014
• Docket Number: No. 4:12–CV–2109 CAS.,4:12–CV–2109 CAS.
• Citation: 61 F.Supp.3d 806
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
• Parties: Stephen JONES, Plaintiff, v. Francis G. SLAY, et al., Defendants.

61 F.Supp.3d 806

Stephen JONES, Plaintiff

v.Francis G. SLAY, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:12–CV–2109 CAS.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

Signed Nov. 18, 2014.

Alex Lumaghi, Richard K. Dowd, Dowd and Dowd, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.

Christopher R. Hoell, H. Anthony Relys, Philip Sholtz, Attorney General of Missouri, St. Louis, MO, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHARLES A. SHAW, District Judge.

This matter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is before the Court on separate motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Vincent Carr and Shell Sharp. The motions are fully briefed and ready for decision. For the following reasons, defendants Carr and Sharp's motions for summary judgment will be granted in part, denied in part and denied in part as moot.

I. Background

This action was filed on November 9, 2012 by plaintiff Stephen Jones against the members of the Board of Police Commissioners of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (collectively the “Board”) and two former St. Louis police officers, defendants Carr and Sharp. Plaintiff alleges that his federal civil rights were violated when he was arrested, convicted and imprisoned for a period of over twelve years based on false evidence manufactured by defendants Carr and Sharp. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that Carr and Sharp conspired with each other and made a false affidavit to obtain a search warrant for plaintiff's parents' apartment, falsely claimed that while executing the search warrant they observed plaintiff holding a plastic bag containing $15,000 worth of cocaine base, stole $5,200 belonging to plaintiff's father during the search of the residence, suppressed exculpatory evidence, arrested plaintiff and falsely testified against him at trial in order to prevent any complaints concerning the theft, as part of a pattern of illegal activity on their parts. Plaintiff also alleges that the Board had a policy, or pervasive custom and practice, of reliance on manufactured evidence, and that it failed to train, supervise, control, instruct or discipline the officers under its control in various respects. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Carr and Sharp's conduct, he was found guilty by a jury of one count of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base and sentenced to 240 months in prison.

During plaintiff's incarceration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Missouri began to investigate Carr and Sharp “for the same illegal activities that resulted in [plaintiff's] wrongful conviction and imprisonment.” Amended Complaint at 8, ¶ 24. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of this investigation, defendant Carr pleaded guilty in February 2009 to federal criminal charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, making a false statement and obstruction of justice based on facts very similar to those in the instant case, including wrongfully accusing a third party of criminal activity in order to deflect investigation into his theft. See United States v. Carr, No. 4:08–CR–703 ERW (E.D.Mo.). Plaintiff alleges that the investigation also led to defendant Sharp leaving the police department in June 2009 “under charges” of fraudulently concocting affidavits in support of search warrants.

Based on Carr's conviction, plaintiff sought permission from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive habeas corpus motion seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The United States acquiesced in plaintiff's request and the Eighth Circuit issued an order authorizing plaintiff to proceed with his motion, which was filed in September 2010. After reviewing the evidence presented at plaintiff's trial along with new evidence concerning Carr's corrupt practices, the United States in November 2010 joined in plaintiff's motion to vacate his sentence, stating there was no credible independent evidence to corroborate Carr's testimony against plaintiff. The United States also admitted that Sharp's testimony was not reliable or credible. On November 10, 2010, this Court, the Honorable Judge Carol E. Jackson presiding, issued an order vacating plaintiff's conviction and ordering the United States Bureau of Prisons to release him from custody immediately.¹ Plaintiff subsequently sought a Certificate of Innocence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2513, which was granted by Judge Jackson on May 12, 2011, who found that plaintiff was actually innocent of the crime for which he was imprisoned for twelve years and eight months.

Plaintiff asserts federal civil rights claims against Carr, Sharp and the Board pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and supplemental state law claims against Carr and Sharp for malicious prosecution, wrongful imprisonment and abuse of process.²

II. Legal Standard

The standards applicable to summary judgment motions are well settled. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a court may grant a motion for summary judgment if all of the information before the court shows “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

The initial burden is placed on the moving party. City of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa v. Associated Elec. Co-op., Inc., 838 F.2d 268, 273 (8th Cir.1988) (the moving party has the burden of clearly establishing the non-existence of any genuine issue of fact that is material to a judgment in its favor). Once this burden is discharged, if the record shows that no genuine dispute exists, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party who must set forth affirmative evidence and specific facts showing there is a genuine dispute on a material factual issue. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

Once the burden shifts, the non-moving party may not rest on the allegations in its pleadings, but by affidavit and other evidence must set forth specific facts showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) ; Herring v. Canada Life Assur. Co., 207 F.3d 1026, 1029 (8th Cir.2000) ; Allen v. Entergy Corp., 181 F.3d 902, 904 (8th Cir.1999). The non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,

475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Herring, 207 F.3d at 1029 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). A party resisting summary judgment has the burden to designate the specific facts that create a triable question of fact, see Crossley v. Georgia–Pacific Corp., 355 F.3d 1112, 1114 (8th Cir.2004), and “must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in the plaintiff's favor.” Davidson & Assocs. v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir.2005).

As a threshold matter, the Court notes that in response to defendants' Carr and Sharp's Statements of Uncontroverted Material Fact, plaintiff responded as required by Local Rule 4.01(E),³ and in addition submitted his own Statements of Additional Material Facts supported by citation to the record.⁴ Defendants object to a number of plaintiff's additional facts as being legal conclusions, opinions, irrelevant and/or argumentative. Some of defendants' responses are insufficient under Local Rule 4.01(E) because they fail to articulate how a fact is disputed or do not contain a sufficiently specific reference to the record.

The Court is mindful that in reviewing a motion for summary judgment, it must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, give the non-moving party the benefit of any inferences that can logically be drawn from those facts, Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, and resolve all conflicts in favor of the non-moving party. Robert Johnson Grain Co. v. Chemical Interchange Co., 541 F.2d 207, 210 (8th Cir.1976). For purposes of resolving instant motions, the Court largely adopts plaintiff's statement of additional material facts, although many are controverted by the defendants.

III. Facts

With the foregoing standards in mind, the Court accepts the following facts as true for purposes of resolving this motion for summary judgment.

Facts Based on Defendants Carr and Sharp's Statements of Facts

1. On October 29, 1997, defendant Carr applied for and obtained a state search warrant to search for cocaine base in a two-story, two-family residence located at 2802 Missouri Avenue (“2082 Missouri”) in the City of St. Louis. Sharp Ex. A at 1.

2. The target of the search warrant was an individual named Sherrod Greenlaw. Sharp Ex. A.

3. On October 29, 1997, five officers of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (“SLMPD”), including defendant Carr and his partner, defendant Sharp, executed the search warrant at 2802 Missouri. Sharp Ex. B at 7.

4. The police found and seized guns and money during the search and found a bag containing three clear plastic bags that contained crack cocaine. Sharp Ex. B at 9, Sharp Ex. C at 18–19.

5. Plaintiff Stephen Jones was inside his father's apartment in the residence at 2802 Missouri when the police executed the search warrant. Carr Ex. D, Jones Dep. 49–50.

6. The police detained plaintiff on the couch during the search on October 29, 1997. Jones Dep. 67.

7. Defendants Carr and Sharp took plaintiff to the police station after the search on October 29, 1997, and released him about an hour later the same day. Jones Dep. 76–77, 84–85; Carr Ex. B at 10.

8. On October 31, 1997, defendant Carr drafted the report detailing the incident. Sharp Ex. B at 11.

9. On December 15, 1997, a federal warrant was issued for plaintiff's arrest. Carr Ex. D.

10. On or about December 24, 1997, plainti...