United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
STEVEN A. JORDAN, Plaintiff,
ST. LOUIS CITY JUSTICE CENTER, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG, 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 amended 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. Plaintiff has named the
following as defendants in this action: the St. Louis City
Justice Center; the City of St. Louis; the St. Louis
Metropolitan Police Department; and the State of Missouri.
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 Court.
asserts that, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, he was
subjected to malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and
false arrest because he was released from incarceration two
years later on a nolle prosequi. Plaintiff claims
that “a computer contained 64 voice
recordings…of evidence of innocence to the St. Louis
City Justice Center Courts on May 5, 2011 . . . [h]owever, no
immediate process was initiated to restore life or
asserts that during his incarceration he suffered nerve
damage to his right shoulder and hip. However, plaintiff has
not provided any details as to how he suffered these
seeks monetary damages and expungement of his record.
claims relating to his assertions under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment are barred by the five-year statute of
limitations and are subject to dismissal. “Although 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. § 516.120(4).
plaintiff's claims against the St. Louis City Justice
Center and the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department are
legally frivolous because these entities cannot be sued.
Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81,
82 (8th Cir. 1992) (departments or subdivisions of local
government are “not juridical entities suable as
such.”). Furthermore, plaintiff's claims against
the State of Missouri are also subject to dismissal, as the
State of ...