United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. SIPPEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court for review of plaintiff's
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court
has reviewed the complaint, and the Court finds that the
complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
U.S.C. § 1915A
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must 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 from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if it Alacks
an arguable basis in either law or fact.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). An action is
malicious if it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing
the named defendants and not for the purpose of vindicating a
cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F.Supp.
458, 461-63 (E.D. N.C. 1987), aff'd 826 F.2d
1059 (4th Cir. 1987). A complaint fails to state a claim if
it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
names Verlan Graham, the arresting officer in his DWI case,
as the sole defendant in this action. Plaintiff alleges that
Graham falsified statements in his arrest report.
Specifically, plaintiff claims that Graham lied in the report
when he stated that three separate witnesses told him that
plaintiff was drinking on the day he was arrested. Plaintiff
states that these three witnesses have since written new
statements contradicting what Graham stated in his arrest
does not claim that the arrest report and/or the witness
statements were themselves used as probable cause to
arrest plaintiff. Rather, plaintiff claims that the
“false police report” denied him due process of
law and resulted in him missing time with his family.
However, plaintiff does not explain how he came to this
conclusion in his complaint. Plaintiff seeks over $50, 000 to
compensate him for the alleged wrongdoing.
Court reviewed the criminal complaint and the probable cause
statement underlying plaintiff's state court criminal
action on Missouri.Case.Net. and found that none of the
information relating to the aforementioned witness statements
was included in the criminal complaint or the probable cause
statement bolstering the complaint. See State v.
Coomer, No.16CG-CR00452-01 (32nd Judicial
Circuit, Cape Girardeau County Court). Thus, his arrest could
not have been in violation of “due process” or in
violation of the Fourth Amendment due to “false
statements” in the arrest report. In fact,
plaintiff's own version of the purported “arrest
report, ” make it plain that the arrest report was
written after plaintiff was already arrested.
probable cause statement attached to the criminal complaint
states in full exactly what Officer Graham believed supported
plaintiff's arrest. It states as follows:
I, Officer Graham, knowing that false statements on this form
are punishable by law, state that the facts contained are
1. I have probable cause to believe that, Dallis Fay Coomer,
committed [ ] or more criminal offenses: Driving While
Intoxicated (Aggravated Offender), and Fail to Drive
Right-Half of Roadway.
2. The facts supporting this belief are as follows:
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at approximately 6:51 PM, I,
Officer Graham, was stationary on Pacific Street, facing
State Street in Cape Girardeau County. I observed a white
Chevrolet pickup truck that appeared to be traveling slowly
as it was heading northbound on E. State Street. The vehicle
was traveling in the middle of the road. I pulled in behind
the vehicle and activated my emergency equipment. ...