United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff, Jerry
McCauley, registration no. 170121), an inmate at Algoa
Correctional Center, for leave to commence this action
without payment of the required filing fee. For the reasons
stated below, the Court finds that plaintiff does not have
sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee and will assess
an initial partial filing fee of $4.77. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Furthermore, based upon a review of
the complaint, the Court will stay and administratively close
this action pursuant to the Supreme Court case of Wallace
v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007), based on the pendency of
an underlying criminal case against plaintiff that arises out
of the same facts.
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
asserting violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. Prior to
this case being filed, a related underlying criminal case was
filed against plaintiff in Missouri State Court. See
State v. McCauley, Case No.1422-CR02392-01
(21st Judicial Circuit, St. Louis City Court).
After a jury trial in St. Louis City Court, plaintiff was
found guilty of Class A misdemeanors of resisting a lawful
detention, § 575.150, RSMo 2000, and possession with
intent to use drug paraphernalia, § 195.233, RSMo 2000.
The Honorable Dennis Schaumann sentenced plaintiff to one
year in a Medium Security Institution on each count.
Plaintiff subsequently appealed his conviction to the
Missouri Court of Appeals where the matter is currently under
review. See State v. McCauley, Case No. ED104138.
State filed a cross-appeal of the trial court's order
granting plaintiff's motion for judgment of acquittal
notwithstanding the verdict as to one count of unlawful
possession of a firearm. The State's appeal has been
consolidated with plaintiff's appeal. Id.
case, plaintiff asserts claims for false arrest, false
imprisonment and malicious prosecution as a result of an
alleged false arrest that allegedly occurred on June 19,
2014. He brings this action against the seven St. Louis City
Police Detectives who were involved in his arrest, as well as
an unnamed, Unknown Confidential Informant who was also part
of his arrest.
complaint, plaintiff alleges that the seven St. Louis City
Police Detective defendants started surveilling him, his car
and his girlfriend's residence during the week of June 2,
2014, acting on a “tip” from defendant Unknown
Confidential Informant that plaintiff was selling heroin.
Plaintiff states that on June 12, 2014, defendant Shaw
obtained a search warrant from a St. Louis City Circuit Court
Judge; however, plaintiff believes that the search warrant
was based on material misstatements and omissions of material
facts. Plaintiff claims that the defendant Detectives
gathered on June 19, 2014 to execute the warrant, waiting
until plaintiff showed up at his girlfriend's residence.
Plaintiff claims that when he exited the residence, he saw
the Detectives exit their car and he started running across a
field and felt a pain in his right arm, and found out he had
been hit by a taser in his arm. He was then ordered by the
Detectives to get on the ground, and he states he was subdued
by the defendant Detectives and “pounced upon”
until he was placed in handcuffs.
plaintiff was taken into custody he claims that he was taken
to his girlfriend's residence and both the residence and
his car were searched and evidence was
“manufactured” in a ninety-minute search, which
was used to “charge, indict and try” plaintiff.
Plaintiff states that this manufactured evidence was also
used in a parole revocation hearing in order to revoke his
to public records, a search of the residence resulted in
finding in the kitchen, heroin, a digital scale, sandwich
bags, empty capsules, and a nine millimeter semi-automatic
pistol. Police also found two pairs of scissors with a white
powder on them and a toothbrush in a drawer in the kitchen.
In the bathroom the officers located a .40 caliber
semi-automatic pistol under the sink. See State of
Missouri v. McCauley, No. ED104138, Appellant's
Brief, p. 6. In the bedroom, police located a plastic bag of
marijuana, approximately $5000 in cash, a .380 semi-automatic
pistol, a prescription medicine and doctor's cards for
future appointments in the plaintiff's name. Also located
was men's clothing and bank statements addressed to the
plaintiff. In a separate closet, the officers located
women's clothing and ammunition and a box for a .380
caliber pistol. Id.
jury trial, plaintiff was found guilty, as noted above, of
one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, one count of
possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia, and one
count of misdemeanor resisting arrest. See State v.
McCauley, Case No.1422-CR02392-01
(21stJudicial Circuit, St. Louis City Court). The
trial court then granted plaintiff's motion for acquittal
as to the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm and
sentenced plaintiff to one year on each of the remaining
claims in this lawsuit arise under the Fourth Amendment and
include: lack of probable cause; false/misleading affidavit;
plaintiff/manufacturing evidence; malicious prosecution;
false arrest; false imprisonment; warrantless search;
warrantless seizure; and two claims of excessive force,
primarily against defendant Willis for shooting a Taser at
plaintiff during the course of his arrest.
Wallace v. Kato, the United States Supreme Court
held that ''the statute of limitations upon a §
1983 claim seeking damages for a false arrest in violation of
the Fourth Amendment, where the arrest is followed by
criminal proceedings, begins to run at the time the claimant
is detained pursuant to legal process.''
Wallace, 549 U.S. at 397. The Court observed that
''[f]alse arrest and false imprisonment overlap; the
former is a species of the latter.'' Id. at
388. The Court instructed that where ''a plaintiff
files a false arrest claim before he has been convicted . . .
it is within the power of the district court, and in accord
with common practice, to stay the civil action until the
criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is
ended.'' Id. at 393-94. Otherwise, the court
and the parties are left to ''speculate about whether
a prosecution will be brought, whether ...