Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jordan v. State of Missouri District Attorney's Office

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

December 26, 2017

STEVEN A. JORDAN, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff 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).

         Standard of Review

         Under 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.

         When 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.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights. Plaintiff has named the State of Missouri District Attorney's Office as the sole defendant in this action.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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 liberty.”

         Plaintiff asserts that during his incarceration he suffered nerve damage to his right shoulder and hip from “sleeping conditions” at the Justice Center. Plaintiff does not elaborate on how the defendant the District Attorney's Office allegedly caused his injuries other than to state that he was unlawfully incarcerated. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and expungement of his record.

         This is the third time plaintiff has brought this action to this Court. On November 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri alleging primarily the same, or similar claims, against the St. Louis City Court. See Jordan v. 22ndJudicial Circuit Court, No. 4:17CV2680 RWS (E.D.Mo.). Plaintiff's case was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, in addition to being legally frivolous, on November 9, 2017. Id.

         On November 6, 2017, plaintiff filed almost the same exact action as the instant action against the St. Louis City Justice Center, the City of St. Louis, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and the State of Missouri. See Jordan v. St. Louis City Justice Center, No. 4:17CV2681 AGF (E.D.Mo.). The case was dismissed on December 4, 2017, as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim.[1] Id.

         Discussion

         The allegations in the complaint are duplicative of the allegations plaintiff brought in the two prior cases in this Court, which the Court dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). As a result, this complaint will be dismissed as duplicative. E.g., Cooper v. Delo, 997 F.2d 376, 377 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.