United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged
civil rights violations arising out of his arrest on July 13,
2015 for sexual assault of a minor. In response to the
Court's show cause order dated December 12, 2017,
plaintiff states he was not convicted of any charges
pertaining to this allegedly unlawful arrest, and has no
pending case. Because plaintiffs case is not barred by
Heck v. Humphrey, the Court will conduct an initial
review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) of plaintiff s civil
rights action. Upon review, the Court will order the Clerk of
Court to issue process on the complaint.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if "it
lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact."
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An
action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).
reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the
Court must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal
construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in
favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly
baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33
(1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236(1974).
alleges that on July 13, 2015, he was arrested based on
falsified information in a police incident report. At 10:30
p.m., Patrice Brown called 911 from plaintiffs residence
alleging that plaintiff had sexually assaulted Brown's
minor daughter, D.D. Two officers responded to the call, one
of whom escorted plaintiff to a patrol vehicle, while the
other officer spoke to Brown and D.D. The two officers then
transported plaintiff to police headquarters, where defendant
Detective Miles was waiting in an interview room.
interview with Detective Miles, plaintiff denied all the
allegations regarding the sexual assault. Detective Miles
then swabbed plaintiff for DNA and transported him to the St.
Louis City Justice Center where he was booked on four counts
of attempted statutory sodomy, two counts of attempted
statutory rape, and one count of child molestation. All
charges were taken under advisement and plaintiff was
released the following day.
reviewing Detective Miles' statement of facts and
probable cause statement, the State issued a warrant for
plaintiffs arrest on July 31, 2015. See ECF. No. 15.
Plaintiff was rebooked on November 9, 2015 to await trial on
the charges. One year later, on November 10, 2016, all
charges pertaining to plaintiffs arrest were dismissed and he
alleges Detective Miles knowingly provided false information
in her probable cause statement, which led to his arrest
without probable cause.
Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of
the people to be "secure in their persons . . . against
unreasonable searches and seizures . . . ." U.S. Const.
Amend. IV. This includes the right to be free from arrest
without probable cause. See Lambert v. City of
Dumas, 187 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir. 1994).
alleges he was arrested without probable cause, based on
fabricated information provided by defendant Detective Miles.
He states Detective Miles falsified the following information
in her incident report: (1) that Officer Wyman contacted
Detective Miles by telephone from the "call for
help" location; (2) that Detective Miles interviewed the
victim and the victim's mother before her interview with
plaintiff; and (3) that plaintiffs arrest occurred at 12:30
a.m. on July 14, 2015. Plaintiff alleges she falsified her
police report to create probable cause to have plaintiff
carefully reviewed and liberally construed the amended
complaint as required, the Court finds plaintiff has stated a
plausible claim for violation of his Fourth Amendment right
to be free from arrest without probable cause. See, e.g.,
Moody v. St. Charles County,23 F.3d 1410, 1411-12 (8th
Cir. 1994) (holding allegation that false affidavit was basis
for arrest warrant is sufficient to state § 1983 Fourth
Amendment claim against affiant officer); Burk v.
Beene,948 F.2d 489, 494-95 (8th Cir. 1991) (holding
officer who was aware affidavit was untruthful "should