Simmons v. Chrum
| Decision Date | 04 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:22-CV-135 SPM |
| Parties | WILLIE SIMMONS, Plaintiff, v. SALVATORY CHRUM, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Self-represented Plaintiff Willie Simmons brings this action under 42 U.S.C § 1983 for alleged violations of his civil rights against five[1] defendants. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff is a prisoner incarcerated at the El Dorado Correctional Facility in Kansas; however, he filed this matter in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. On February 3, 2022, the case was transferred to this Court because the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in the Eastern District of Missouri. See ECF Nos. 2-3.
Now before the Court are two motions from Plaintiff. First Plaintiff seeks to allow exhibits to be added to the complaint - exhibits that he alleges were misplaced when the case was transferred here from the Western District Court. ECF No. 6. Although there is no evidence of misplaced exhibits and it appears that some of the exhibits submitted with this motion are already in the court file (see ECF No. 1-2 at 115-126, 155, 240), this motion will be granted and the Court will consider the additional exhibits. Second, Plaintiff asks the Court “to black[] out all personal identifiers and information” in the hundreds of pages of exhibits that he has filed with his complaint. ECF No. 7. Under Local Rule 2.17, the party filing an exhibit with personal data identifiers in it, such as social security numbers, is responsible for excluding or partially redacting such information. E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.17(B). Because Plaintiff is self-represented, the Court will redact the four personal identifiers specifically cited with page numbers in Plaintiff's motion. See ECF No. 7 at 1 ¶ 1. However, the Court will not “black[] out all personal identifiers and information, ” as requested by Plaintiff. Id. at 1 ¶ 2 (emphasis added). Under local rules, the “Clerk of Court will not review [a] filing for compliance, ” and as such, this is not the responsibility of the Court. E.D. Mo. L.R 2.17(B).
Finally, Plaintiff identifies himself as a “three-striker” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and he paid the full filing fee in this matter. See ECF No. 1 at 9. However, his complaint is still subject to initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
Although Plaintiff has paid the full filing fee in this matter, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to review a civil complaint “in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); see also Lewis v. Estes, No. 00-1304, 2000 WL 1673382, at *1 (8th Cir. Nov. 8, 2000) ().
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to review and dismiss a complaint filed by a prisoner in a civil action if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). To state a claim for relief, a complaint must plead more than “legal conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 679. “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 on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679.
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); 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 the claim to be considered within the proper legal framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). However, even self-represented plaintiffs 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 order to understand the allegations of Plaintiff's complaint, some background information is necessary. Plaintiff Simmons has an extensive litigation history, originating with Missouri murder charges from 1987. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals summarized Plaintiff's state court history as follows:
Simmons was convicted in a single trial [in Missouri state court] of two counts of capital murder following the deaths of Leonora McClendon and Cheri Johnson. Following the jury's recommendation, the trial court sentenced Simmons to death on both counts. The Missouri Supreme court then overturned the two convictions on the grounds that the murder charges should not have been tried together. See State v. Simmons, 815 S.W.2d 426 (Mo. 1991) (en banc). On remand, Simmons was tried separately for both murders. He was convicted and sentenced to death after each trial.
Simmons v. Luebbers, 299 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2002).
After Plaintiff's received his two death sentences, he was subsequently denied postconviction relief with the state trial court and with the Missouri Supreme Court on both murder convictions and sentences. See State v. Simmons, 955 S.W.2d 729 (Mo. 1997) (en banc) (Johnson murder); State v. Simmons, 955 S.W.2d 752 (Mo. 1997) (en banc) (McClendon murder). In 1999, Simmons filed two habeas petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with this Court. Both petitions were denied in March 2001. See Simmons v. Bowersox, No. 4:97-cv-2537-RWS (E.D. Mo. filed Dec. 19, 1997) (Johnson murder); Simmons v. Luebbers, No. 4:97-cv-2538-RWS (E.D. Mo. filed Dec. 22, 1997) (McClendon murder).
However, on appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court reversed in part, finding Simmons's trial court attorney was ineffective for failing to present certain mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of both of Simmons's murder trials. Simmons v. Luebbers, 299 F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 2002). As such, the Eighth Circuit remanded the cases back to this Court with direction to grant new penalty phase trials on both murder convictions. After remand, this Court issued writs of habeas corpus in both of Simmons's cases, vacating the death penalties but not the convictions. In 2003, Simmons received sentences of life imprisonment without parole for both convictions. See State v. Simmons, 213 S.W.3d 156, 157 n.1 (Mo.Ct.App. 2006).
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights against five defendants: (1) Salvatory Chrum; (2) Kerry Alexander; (3) James Maier; (4) Michael Blanks; and (5) Michael Kleen. ECF Nos. 1 at 1-4, 1-1 at 1-2. He brings his claims against all defendants in both their individual and official capacities. ECF No. 1-1 at 1.
Plaintiff's pleadings are repetitive, difficult to read, and hard to understand. Plaintiff attempts to divide his complaint into nineteen claims, but most of the claims are based on the same underlying facts and make the same arguments. Plaintiff's main allegation seems to be that defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act (RA), 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.; the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments; and Missouri statutes. ECF Nos. 1 at 4, 1-1 at 3. Plaintiff labels himself as “deaf” and argues that defendants failed to provide him with “a sign language interpreter during their interactions.” ECF No. 1-1 at 3.
Plaintiff describes defendants Chrum, Alexander, Maier, and Blanks as police officers “personally invol[ved] in the case[s] of McClendon and Johnson Murder[s].” Id. at 1. Defendant Kleen is a security guard and “witness for James Maier and Chrum Salvatory, ” who appears to have testified against Plaintiff in the “Johnson murder” trial. Id. at 2. Plaintiff asserts that officers Chrum, Alexander, Maier, and Blanks interviewed him in the fall of 1987 in connection with the investigations into the murders of Johnson and McClendon. Id. at 5. According to Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff showing the officers “his identification bracelet” worn on his arm to indicate “that he was deaf, ” the officers did not provide him with a qualified sign language interpreter as required by Missouri law. Id. at 5-8. Plaintiff also asserts that defendant officers failed to conduct the interview in writing when one hour had passed without an interpreter. As a result, Plaintiff alleges that he could not “communicate effectively” with the officers and he “did not understand why he was being...
To continue reading
Request your trial