United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
PATRICIA A. NAPPIER, Plaintiff,
ROY L. RICHTER, et al., Defendants.
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a pro se litigant, has filed a civil suit and seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Although plaintiff will be granted
leave to proceed without payment of the filing fee, the Court
will dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915
for frivolousness, maliciousness or for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. Id.
Patricia A. Nappier, has filed this civil action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of her due process
rights. She claims that Missouri State Court Judges Roy L.
Richter, Joseph L. Goff, Jr., Phillip M. Hess and Lawrence E.
Mooney denied her constitutional rights when they were
assigned to review rent/real estate action(s) she had against
her brother over the course of an eighteen (18) year period.
claims that over the course of the long litigation against
her brother, John Forrester, she was, in 2002, awarded the
right to buy the rental property/the Forrester property for
$72, 000. Plaintiff asserts that her brother failed to tender
the property in a timely manner and was not held to the
original judgment despite his failure to comply with a court
states that after the housing market crash in 2007/2008,
plaintiff's brother stated that he would comply with the
judgement, but at that time, the house was worth less than
the originally valued amount. When plaintiff failed to pay
the original value due to her inability to get a loan for the
amount, she was “ousted” from the property and
not allowed to retain her personal property from the home.
Plaintiff asserts that a three-judge panel, with Judge
Richter as one of the judges, affirmed Forrester's
possession, which plaintiff believed was unclear and
contradictory to the original order allowing her to purchase
the property from Forrester.
2014, Forrester filed a petition to quiet title in Missouri
State Court, and Judge Joseph L. Goff allegedly found that
plaintiff failed to deliver payment for the home to Forrester
within the time frame set forth in the 2002 Judgment,
purportedly failed to allow plaintiff to file a counterclaim
against Forrester, and held that plaintiff owed Forrester
alleges that she appealed Judge Goff's holding to the
Missouri Court of Appeals, and a three-judge panel, made up
of Judge Roy Richter, Lawrence Mooney and Phillip Hess, once
again found in favor of Forrester. Plaintiff also asserts
that Judge Richter violated her rights when he failed to
recuse himself from hearing the appeal.
request for relief, plaintiff seeks an injunction to
“stay all decrees from the Missouri Court of
Appeals” because she believes that time is of the
essence. She also wishes to be able to go onto the real
property at issue, which lies in St. Francois County, in
order to retrieve her personal belongings. However, she
admits that her brother has had possession of the home since
October 31, 2012. Plaintiff also seeks to stay and prevent
any condemnation proceedings that have been threatened. In
addition, plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and punitive
complaint is legally frivolous as to the defendants in this
action because judges are “entitled to absolute
immunity for all judicial actions that are not ‘taken
in a complete absence of all jurisdiction.'”
Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir.
2003) (quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12
(1991)). Plaintiff has not provided any facts in this action
showing that the named defendants took actions in absence of
their judicial authority. As a result, plaintiff's
allegations do not show that defendants acted outside of
their jurisdiction, and defendants are entitled to absolute
the complaint is frivolous because this Court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction “over challenges to state
court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial
proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state
court's action was unconstitutional. Review of those
decisions may be had only in [the United States Supreme
Court].” District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983). As a consequence,
this action must be dismissed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint
shall be DISMISSED as frivolous, malicious
or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may ...