Ladd v. City of St. Louis

Decision Date31 March 2012
Docket NumberCase No. 4:10CV02219 AGF
PartiesABU BAKR LADD, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff Abu Bakr Ladd's first amended complaint. For dismissal, the movants assert, among other grounds, res judicata, statute of limitations, and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND
Procedural History

Plaintiff has filed two lawsuits, Ladd v. Pickering, No. 4:05CV916 RHK ("Ladd I") and the instant suit ("Ladd II"), arising from a single series of events: the issuance of a search warrant for, and the search of his home, his arrest by officers from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department ("SLMPD"), his subsequent detention in federal custody,and the denial of a complaint he filed with the Internal Affairs Division ("IAD") of the SLMPD.

The allegations common to both complaints are as follows. Defendant Jeffrey Pickering, a detective with the SLMPD, based on information purportedly received from a confidential informant (CI) and from his own personal observations, completed an affidavit in support of a search warrant for Plaintiff's home. On September 25, 2003, officers from the SLMPD and agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") executed the search warrant. Upon completing the search, FBI agents arrested Plaintiff and took him into custody. While Plaintiff was in custody, an Assistant United States Attorney and several agents of the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") met with Plaintiff and tried to recruit him as an informant for the federal government within the local Muslim community, but Plaintiff refused their request. Plaintiff was released from federal custody on December 11, 2003, and the charges against him were dropped on January 13, 2004. On January 15, 2004, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the IAD of the SLMPD, and on June 2, 2004, the IAD issued a written recommendation that Plaintiff's complaint be "not sustained." Plaintiff appealed that recommendation to the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners ("the Board"), and the Board sustained the IAD's recommendation.

Ladd I

On June 6, 2005, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in Ladd I against the FBI, the ATF, the United States Attorney's Office, the City of St. Louis, the Board, the SLMPD,St. Louis City Mayor Francis Slay, numerous federal prosecutors and agents (including Defendant Luke Adler), and eleven St. Louis police officers, including Detective Pickering. In Ladd I, Plaintiff alleged four claims: (1) unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983; (2) malicious prosecution; (3) false imprisonment; and (4) a civil conspiracy to cover up Plaintiff's allegedly improper arrest and detention.

On April 28, 2006, Judge Richard Kyle of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation, dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against the City, the Mayor, the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, the ATF, and the SLMPD. (Ladd I, Doc. No. 53.) The claims against the federal officials named in their official capacity were dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. With respect to the remaining individual Defendants, SLMPD police officers, federal agents and Assistant United States Attorneys, Judge Kyle allowed Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint to sue them in their individual capacities, by including specific allegations regarding the role, if any, played by each in the asserted violations of his rights. Id. At that time, the Court also granted Plaintiff leave to amend his civil conspiracy claims to add additional facts in support of a "meeting of the minds."

Plaintiff did not pursue the proposed amendments, and instead, on May 30, 2006, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming Pickering, individually, the Board, and individual Board members: Colonel Susan C. J. Rollins, Colonel Bart Saracino, Colonel Jo Ann Freeman, Colonel Michael J. Quinn, and Captain Antoinette M. Filla, asDefendants. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff asserted the same four claims, including those that had been dismissed with prejudice, and failed to cure the defects in the civil conspiracy claim. (Ladd I, Doc. No. 54.) Plaintiff abandoned his claims against all other individual defendants. Id.

The remaining Defendants moved to dismiss, and on October 4, 2006, Judge Kyle dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against the Board and the individual Board members finding that Plaintiff's allegations were impermissibly predicated upon respondeat superior, or in the alternative, that even if Plaintiff could show that the Board members were directly involved in the alleged wrongs, he had not and could not allege that the conduct of the Board members was the cause-in-fact of his alleged injuries. (Ladd I, Doc. No. 71.) In addition, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment as duplicative of Plaintiff's § 1983 claim under the Fourth Amendment because they arose from the same injury - the right to be free from arrest and prosecution without probable cause. Id. Finally, Plaintiff's claim asserting a civil conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional rights was dismissed with prejudice, and his assertion of a civil conspiracy to "cover up" the improper search was dismissed without prejudice for failing to allege a "meeting of the minds."1 Id. Only Plaintiff'sFourth Amendment claim against Pickering, individually, remained. Plaintiff did not appeal these rulings.

On April 20, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery related to his remaining Fourth Amendment claim against Pickering, seeking: (1) information and documentation provided by the CI to Pickering in support of the search warrant for Plaintiff's home; (2) information in Defendant's possession regarding the IAD complaint Plaintiff filed against Pickering with the SLMPD and the Board; (3) information in Defendant's possession regarding reprimands of Pickering by the SLMPD or the Board; and (4) information regarding Pickering's financial situation. (Ladd I, Doc. No. 82.)

On May 15, 2007, the District Court denied the portion of Plaintiff's motion to compel regarding the identity of the CI and Pickering's financial situation, but granted Plaintiff's request for information regarding the assertion by the SLMPD that Plaintiff's initial IAD complaint was lost after Plaintiff was released from federal custody, and his request for information concerning complaints lodged against, or reprimands of, Pickering. (Ladd I, Doc No. 91.)

On November 2, 2007, the District Court granted Pickering's motion for summary judgment on the one remaining claim. (Ladd I, Doc. Nos. 92, 93, 100, 101.) Plaintiff then appealed the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Pickering and its denial of the motion to compel. (Ladd I, Doc. Nos. 102, 107, 109.)

On August 3, 2009, the Eighth Circuit reversed, in part, the District Court's denial of Plaintiff's motion to compel and vacated the grant of summary judgment in light ofthat ruling. The Eighth Circuit instructed the District Court to order Pickering to produce, for in camera review, documentary evidence, if available, of the identity of the CI and any alleged conversations between the CI and Pickering concerning Plaintiff. The District Court was further instructed to examine the documents to determine whether the CI's identity and the content of the CI's communications "were essential to Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against Pickering and the police department." (Ladd I, Doc. Nos. 109, 110.)

In response to the Order, Defendant Pickering produced an affidavit with information about the CI. The Court determined that the information in the affidavit was not sensitive and should be shared with the Plaintiff. (Ladd I, Doc. No. 114.) Plaintiff thereafter filed a memorandum in support of his motion to compel discovery stating that he was entitled to Pickering's phone records relating to the period of his investigation and surveillance of Plaintiff, as well as an un-redacted version of the Board's and/or SLMPD's document retention policies. (Ladd I, Doc. Nos. 116, 136, 137.)

Plaintiff's motion to compel was granted on August 26, 2010, requiring Defendants to produce Defendant Pickering's cell phone number during the relevant period, and an un-redacted version of an e-mail chain mentioning another case involving the Board. On September 22, 2010, Judge Kyle held a hearing to entertain the City's objections to producing the information and specifically their contention that the information sought had been discarded or lost and was no longer available.

Given the City's inability to provide information about the CI and the fact that a record of Pickering's cell phone number at the relevant time no longer existed, JudgeKyle found it possible that there had been spoliation of evidence. He ordered Defendants to make the SLMPD document retention policy available to Plaintiff by October 6, 2010, and further suggested that the parties submit briefs and supplement the record on the issue of spoliation. (Ladd I, Doc. No. 146.)

Plaintiff did not seek leave to amend his complaint to include allegations or claims related to spoliation of evidence. Instead, on November 29, 2010, four days before the start of the trial on the Fourth Amendment claim, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions with respect to spoliation of evidence and commenced this action, Ladd II. (Ladd I, Doc. No. 147.) Judge Kyle denied the motion for spoliation sanctions on December 1, 2010,2 and a five day jury trial on Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim against Pickering in his individual capacity began on December 3, 2010....

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT