Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Thompson v. Normandy Police Department

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

August 9, 2019




         This matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Kelvin C. Thompson for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. (Docket No. 2). Having reviewed the motion and the financial information submitted in support, the Court finds that it should be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to state a claim and for frivolity.

         Legal Standard on Initial Review

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 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, a plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “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 upon judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679. The court must “accept as true the facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir. 2016). See also Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating that court must accept factual allegations in complaint as true, but is not required to “accept as true any legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).

         When reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give it the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A “liberal construction” means that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, the district court should construe the plaintiff's complaint in a way that permits his or her claim to be considered within the proper legal framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). However, even pro se complaints are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980). See also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating that federal courts are not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”). In addition, affording a pro se complaint the benefit of a liberal construction does not mean that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation must be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who has filed a civil action against the Normandy Police Department.[1] He claims that this Court's jurisdiction is derived from Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; 18 U.S.C. § 241; 18 U.S.C. § 242; 18 U.S.C. § 245; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; the Civil Rights Act of 1866; and 34 U.S.C. § 12601. (Docket No. 1 at 3).

         In his statement of claim, plaintiff asserts that he has filed civil lawsuits against the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, the Creve Coeur Police Department, and “against corrupt FBI agents.” (Docket No. 1 at 5). Since then, he alleges that these entities have “extended their harassment, racism, and civil rights violations” by “enlisting the help of St. Louis County [municipalities], including [the] Ferguson Police Department, Cool Valley Police Department, and Normandy Police Department.” He asserts that all these departments “have a brutal history” of civil rights violations, police brutality, corruption, and discrimination, especially against African American males.

         Plaintiff alleges that these departments utilize both uniformed and “undercover corrupt officers to follow [him] 24/7.” He states that they are “wasting millions of dollars [a] day in government resources to follow [him] to Walmart just to see [him] buy a loaf of bread or to Taco Bell [just] to see [him] do a #1 or #2.” He accuses these officers of literally “looking under stalls” in the bathroom. He states that this “nonsense” costs millions of dollars a day, and as much as $1.2 billion a year. Meanwhile, plaintiff states, there are thousands of murders that go unsolved, along with hundreds of thousands of other crimes that “are not solved or foiled.” He asserts that “law enforcement is wasting taxpayers['] monies watching a middle age 60 year old African American Male take a dump or [buy] a hot dog at the hot dog stand.”

         Plaintiff has filed a supplement to the complaint in which he substantially restates his Statement of Claim. (Docket No. 4 at 2). He once again asserts that various area police departments are using uniformed and undercover officers to follow him twenty-four hours a day. He accuses these agencies of “spending millions of dollars a day acting like they are buying a watermelon at Aldi's or pickled pig feet from Pete's Market to watch 24/7, harass and violate” his civil rights.

         Additionally, plaintiff claims that these law enforcement agencies have “enlisted the services of thugs and criminals” to “harass and disrupt [his] everyday life.” These thugs and criminals “do trifling deeds like slash[ing] tires, stealing [his] mail, poisoning food at grocery stores, and intentionally wrecking [his] vehicles trying to kill or lame [him].” He asserts that “all these law enforcement agencies that [he has] a civil suit against are enlisting the help of criminals to break the law.”

         Plaintiff states that the Ferguson Police Department is the primary source of corruption, discrimination, and civil rights violations. However, the Cool Valley and Normandy Police Departments are also “conspiring together with them and rogue thugs from [Georgia], [the] Carolinas, New York, California, Alabama and Illinois.” (Docket No. 4 at 2-3). He claims “these entities have formed an alliance to destroy and violate [his] civil and human rights to live without fear of death.” (Docket No. 4 at 3).

         According to plaintiff, the “Ferguson Police Department has moved these thugs and operatives next door to” him, in a condemned home. Further, the Ferguson Police Department has allowed and assisted their undercover officers, along with other “operatives and thugs from in and out of state, ” to become embedded into the community in order to harass and terrorize him. He claims that the Ferguson, Cool Valley, and Normandy Police Departments follow him everywhere he goes. He states these departments are also assisted by the FBI or FBI impersonators.

         Plaintiff states that he has made numerous complaints to the Ferguson Police Department over the last several months. He has also complained by calling 911, after he was ...

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.