Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith-El v. A Construction Co.

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

November 28, 2016

JONATHAN SMITH-EL, Plaintiff,
v.
A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          John A. Ross United States District Judge

         Before the Court are plaintiffs post-dismissal motion for copies and his motion, and supplement, for "rehearing." [Doc. #7, #9 and #10]

         Background

         Plaintiff filed his complaint in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 8, 2016. Plaintiffs complaint in this action was filed following the dismissal of a similar action in this Court. See Smith v. State of Missouri, No. 2:15CV32 JMB (E.D.Mo. 2015). In his prior action, plaintiff was denied a motion to reopen and/or amend his complaint on November 2, 2015. Id.

         Like his 2015 action, in this action, plaintiffs complaint contains a myriad of claims against many different defendants. Plaintiff asserts that he was subjected to false arrest, false imprisonment, slander, unlawful conviction, malicious prosecution, deliberate indifference to his medical needs (relating to fainting), various due process violations, failure to protect and numerous claims challenging his conviction which are not cognizable in a § 1983 action. Plaintiff also asserts that he was not lawfully given a chance to prosecute his 2015 action in this Court when the Eighth Circuit gave him a "strike" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) during the course of an interlocutory appeal in that action.

         Because plaintiff had filed at least three previous cases that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, the Court dismissed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).[1]

         The Court construes plaintiffs motion for "rehearing, " and his supplemental motion, as a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. [Doc. #9 and #10] Plaintiffs motion for copies relates to plaintiffs failure to follow the Court's Local Rule 2.17 relating to redaction of personal identifiers, causing an attachment to his complaint to be filed under seal. [Doc. #7]

         Discussion

          A. Plaintiff's Request for Copies

         The Court will first address plaintiffs contentions relating to his motion for copies. [Doc. #7] In his motion relating to his request for copies, plaintiff first seeks clarification as to why his three-hundred seventy-three (373) pages of attachments to his complaint have been filed under seal. [#2]

         The attachments contain medical records, plaintiffs date of birth and social security number. Local Rule 2.17 requires redaction of personal data such as social security numbers, birth dates and other personal identifiers. Local Rule 2.17(B) specifically requires, in addition to a redacted filing, having a plaintiff file under seal, either an unredacted copy of the documents or a reference sheet containing a key to the redacted personal identifiers.

         Because plaintiffs attachments to his complaint are so long, almost four-hundred (400) pages, the Court will not require him to file both a redacted copy and an unredacted copy of his attachment. Nonetheless, it will require him, in keeping with the Local Rule, to file the unredacted copy of the attachment under seal in order to maintain the personal privacy of plaintiffs personal identifiers and other medical information. This should clarify why Docket No. 2 is required to be filed under seal in this case.

         In his motion for copies, plaintiff appears to seek copies of several pages of his sealed attachment. The Court does not provide free copies of documents, even if those documents were filed by the parties themselves. All litigants are expected to keep a copy of their documents prior to filing a copy with this Court. If they fail to do so, the Clerk's Office will make copies of documents for the litigant at the rate of fifty cents (500) per page, prepaid.

         To the extent plaintiff wishes to visit the Clerk's office and view the documents himself at the front counter, he may have permission from this Court to do so. But to the extent he is seeking free copies ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.