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.

Moomey v. Lohmar

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

June 22, 2018

MICHAEL MOOMEY, Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY A. LOHMAR, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          JOHN A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff, Michael D. Moomey, an inmate at the St. Charles County Department of Corrections, for leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee. The Court finds that plaintiff does not have sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee and will assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Furthermore, based upon a review of the complaint, the Court will stay and administratively close this action pursuant to the Supreme Court case of Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007), based on the pendency of an underlying criminal case against plaintiff arising j out of the same facts.

         Background .

         Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting violations of his Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. He states that on August 30, 2017[1], he woke up unconscious in St. Mary's Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, and he was told that he was being charged with armed criminal action and first degree domestic assault. Plaintiff claims that he was told by police officers that he had purportedly struck his wife with a rented vehicle. Nevertheless, plaintiff asserts that the defendant police officers in this action falsely placed information in the probable cause statement in order to get a warrant against him.

         The probable cause statement, signed on August 30, 2017, by St. Charles Detective David Weissenborn, states:

On 08/29/17 the victim was running west for exercise on Sibley St. near Gamble St. when she was struck from behind by a vehicle. The impact caused her to land on the hood and strike the back of her head on the windshield. The vehicle drove away after striking her. The victim suffered a concussion and laceration on the back of her head and injuries to her right arm. The victim stated the vehicle was grey/silver in color. The victim also advised she was in the process of getting a divorce from her estranged husband Michael Moomey. She advised he had told her in the past that he understood when someone kills their children and spouse and themselves.
On 08/30/17 I received a phone call from the Maryland Heights PD P.O Swatek advising that they had conducted a check on the wellbeing at the residence M. Moomey was staying at and discovered what they described as a suicide note. P.O. Swatek advised the University City PD had responded to the area of Big Bend and Forest Park Pkwy where they had discovered M. Moomey unconscious laying on the roadway. They discovered a grey/silver vehicle parked nearby that had been rented by M. Moomey. The vehicle's windshield had been broken in the lower right passenger side and it was later discovered there were what appeared to be human hair stuck to the damage. The hair color was similar to that of the victim's. Also in the vehicle was a baseball bat and an ice pick or awl.
M.Moomey was transported to St. Mary's hospital for treatment. M.Moomey admitted to renting the vehicle. He advised he did not remember what had happened and did not know how he had ended up in the hospital.

         Based on Officer's Weissborn's probable cause statement, filed in State v. Moomey, No.1711-CR02906-01 (11th Judicial Circuit, St. Charles County), on August 31, 2017, a warrant was issued for plaintiffs arrest on charges of first degree domestic assault and armed criminal action. Plaintiff was arraigned on September 1, 2017. A grand jury indictment was filed against plaintiff on January 5, 2018.

         As noted above, plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that there was a lack of probable cause to arrest him and that he is being held in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He asserts that his wife, defendant Sarah Moomey, acted in concert with several St. Louis County Police Officers, as well as several St. Charles Prosecutors, to bring a criminal action against plaintiff in order to assist her in divorcing plaintiff and seizing custody of her children.

         Plaintiff claims that Sarah Moomey worked as an administrative assistant at "St. Louis County Headquarters" and began to have an affair with an unnamed St. Louis County Police Lieutenant she worked with there. Plaintiff further alleges that the Lieutenant and an Unknown County Captain told Sarah Moomey that they would "use their influence" to assist her with divorcing plaintiff and seizing custody of her children. Thus, on three occasions, Sarah Moomey purportedly reported that plaintiff assaulted her and swore criminal complaints against plaintiff. See Moomey v. Moomey, No. 1611-PN01060 (11th Circuit, St. Charles County Court).[2]

         Plaintiff asserts that Police Officers Swatek, Lewis and Weissenborn searched his home and car on August 30, 2017 without his consent and that these defendant Police Officers conspired with Prosecutors Anderson, Shaffer and Lohmar to violate plaintiffs rights to due process by arresting him without probable cause, as set forth above. Plaintiff also asserts that Unknown Officers from St. Louis County, including the Chief of Police and an Unknown Lieutenant conspired with plaintiffs wife to interfere in plaintiffs marriage and unlawfully make up charges against plaintiff so that plaintiffs wife could swear out an Order of Protection against plaintiff and he would lose custody of his children.

         Plaintiff asserts a state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against the defendants. For relief, ...


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.