United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
STEVEN A. JORDAN, Plaintiff,
22nd JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MO., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. SIPPEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. After reviewing the
financial information provided the Court will grant the
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
However, plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed for
frivolousness and for failure to state a claim. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. 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.
reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. Furthermore, the
Court liberally construes the allegations.
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his civil rights. The only defendant named in
this action is the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of
asserts that on January 19, 2011, he was arrested and charged
with murder in the first degree and assault in the first
degree, as well as two counts of armed criminal action in St.
Louis City. He asserts that he was subjected to malicious
prosecution and false arrest because he was released two
years later on a nolle prosequi. Plaintiff claims
that “a computer contained 64 voice
recordings…of evidence of innocence to the St. Louis
Courts on May 5, 2011…[h]owever, no immediate process
was initiated to restore life or liberty.” He asserts
that while he was incarcerated he suffered nerve damage to
his right shoulder and hip.
seeks monetary damages and expungement of his record.
claims are barred by the five-year statute of limitations and
are subject to dismissal.
the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, a
district court may properly dismiss an in forma pauperis
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 when it is apparent the
statute of limitations has run.” Myers v.
Vogal, 960 F.2d 750, 751 (8th Cir. 1992). Section 1983
claims are analogous to personal injury claims and are
subject to Missouri's five-year statute of limitations.
Sulik v. Taney County, Mo., 393 F.3d 765, 766-67
(8th Cir. 2005); Mo. Rev. Stat. §
plaintiffs complaint against the state criminal court, or
against his criminal court judge, is legally frivolous
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)).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No 2] is
GRANTEDIT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process on
plaintiffs complaint as it is legally frivolous and/or it
fails to state a ...