United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
STEVEN A. JORDAN, Plaintiff,
STATE OF MISSOURI DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Defendant.
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 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 State
of Missouri District Attorney's Office as the sole
defendant in this action.
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 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.
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.
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
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 ...