United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration, or alternatively, to file an amended
complaint. The motion is denied.
brought this action against Nicolas Osmer, a detective for
St. Louis County, the St. Louis County Police Department, the
Florissant Police Department, and several unknown officers.
In her amended complaint, she alleged that defendant Osmer,
along with defendant unknown officers, executed a search
warrant on her home on March 21, 2017. Osmer showed her the
search warrant, and she told him it was invalid because no
affidavit was attached to it. He told her that a probable
cause affidavit is not part of a search warrant. She claimed
that the unknown officers searched several vehicles on the
property, even though the vehicles were not listed on the
later went to the Circuit Court for St. Louis County and
asked to see the probable cause affidavit. The clerk told her
that there was no affidavit on file.
argued that Osmer violated her rights under the Fourth
Amendment because there was no probable cause affidavit.
Court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) and determined that it did not state a plausible
claim for relief. The Court dismissed the complaint without
motion for reconsideration may be granted only where the
Court has erred by overlooking a factual or legal argument
presented, not where a party failed to present relevant
factual or legal arguments to the Court in the first
instance. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer
Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006).
argues that the Court erred because it misconstrued her
factual allegations. She argues that to search her residence,
Osmer himself was required to submit the probable cause
affidavit to the state court and to present it to her upon
execution of the warrant. Plaintiff cites Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 542.276 in support of her claim, which states in
relevant part, “Any peace officer or prosecuting
attorney may make application under section 542.271 for the
issuance of a search warrant.” Mo. Rev. Stat. §
542.276.1 (emphasis added).
“violations of state laws . . . do not by themselves
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983
guards and vindicates federal rights alone.”
Ebmeier v. Stump, 70 F.3d 1012, 1013 (8th Cir.
1995). Therefore, plaintiff's claim against Osmer is
even if the Missouri statutes were to control the Court's
analysis, the claim would still fail. The statue does not
require that the officer assigned to execute the search
warrant be the same person who submits the affidavit to the
state court. Further, “[a] search warrant is a written
order of a court commanding the search of a person, place, or
thing and the seizure, or photographing or copying, of
property found thereon or therein.” Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 542.266.1. Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing
that the search warrant was defective under the law. As a
result, her claim under state law is frivolous as well.
plaintiff alleges that the unknown officers conducted a
search outside of the scope of the search warrant, she does
not allege that Osmer participated in that search. While her
allegations against the unknown officers may be sufficient to
state a claim under the Fourth Amendment, she ...