United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon several motions filed by the
parties. By way of background, Plaintiff Glenn Rippley
originally filed this action against the City of St. Louis,
Missouri ("St. Louis City") and the St. Louis
Metropolitan Police Department ("SLMPD") on April
25, 2019, in the Southern District of Illinois. (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff raised two distinct issues in separate counts. In
his first count, Plaintiff alleged he was denied a jury trial
on three traffic violations incurred in November, 2018. In
his second count, Plaintiff raised several issues regarding a
possible rape conviction stemming from a May, 2017 incident.
On June 20, 2019, the Honorable J. Phil Gilbert, Senior
United States District Judge in the Southern District of
Illinois, transferred the action to this Court. (ECF No. 6).
The case originally was assigned to United States Magistrate
Judge Noelle C. Collins, but was transferred to the
undersigned on July 2, 2019. (ECF No. 10).
10, 2019, Plaintiff filed both a Motion to Amend and a Motion
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 13, 14). With respect
to the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the Court
previously denied a similar motion because Plaintiff paid the
full filing fee in this action. (ECF Nos. 11, 12). The Court
will deny Plaintiffs second Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis for this same reason.
Count I of his proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff restates
his claim that he was denied a jury trial on three traffic
violations incurred in November, 2018. (ECF No. 17).
Plaintiff further alleges both race and age discrimination.
(Id., P. 3). As relief, Plaintiff seeks the
"expungement of all police reports of the 3 traffic
tickets and the dissmissal (sic) of all three traffic tickets
removed from my Missouri police record." (Id,
Count II of his proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
restates his claims regarding a possible rape conviction
stemming from a May, 2017 incident. (ECF No. 13-1). Plaintiff
claims that as a result of Defendants' actions, he has
suffered "irreversable (sic) financial damages, and
slander of his good name and is on record as a felony rape
offender when Plaintiff is innocent of all charges."
(Id, P. 4). As relief, Plaintiff seeks $50, 000.00
in actual damages, for the "legal destruction of his
livelyhood (sic)", and $50, 000.00 in punitive damages.
(Id.). Plaintiff further requests "a federal
order for the relief of expungement of all criminal records
of this event and any other charges or reports made on the
criminal record of Plaintiff Glenn Austin Rippley."
August 2, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and Supplemental Complaint,
asserting Plaintiff fails to state a claim for which relief
may be granted. (ECF No. 23).
the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and
the civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provide
access to a federal forum for claims of unconstitutional
treatment at the hands of state officials. These statutes
differ in both scope and operation, however.
a prisoner's challenge to the validity of his confinement
or to matters affecting its duration falls within the
province of habeas corpus and, therefore, must be brought
pursuant to § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 500 (1973). On the other hand, challenges involving
the circumstances of confinement, or how one ended up in
confinement, may be presented in a § 1983 action. Often,
the Court looks to the relief requested by Plaintiff to see
what type of action he is seeking. If Plaintiff is seeking
money damages for civil rights violations relating to his
conditions of confinement, the case is most likely a §
1983 action. If Plaintiff is seeking to expunge or vacate his
conviction, however, the action is most likely one brought
pursuant to habeas corpus, or § 2254.
case, Plaintiff apparently is seeking both money damages and
to vacate and expunge his convictions. This appears to be a
"hybrid" action of some sort, where Plaintiff is
seeking both relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court will not allow
Plaintiff to proceed under both statutes simultaneously in
one action. If he wishes to bring both actions in this Court,
he must file two separate cases, seeking separate relief
under the two different statutes.
Plaintiff originally filed the present action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, the Court will presume Plaintiff wishes
to continue to proceed in this action under § 1983 and
allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint on a Court-provided
form, with only his civil rights claims for monetary
damages. Plaintiff must follow the Court's
instructions relating to the filing of his Second Amended
Complaint, as set forth below, or he will face dismissal of
his action, without prejudice.
is required to submit his Second Amended Complaint on a
Court-provided form, and it must comply with Rules 8 and 10
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) requires
that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and a
demand for the relief sought. Rule 10(b) requires that a
party must state its claims or defenses in separately
numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a
single set of circumstances.
must also clearly state the Defendants against whom he is
pursuing allegations, and he must articulate, for each of
those Defendants, the factual circumstances surrounding
their alleged wrongful conduct. Plaintiffs failure to make
specific and actionable allegations against any of the
Defendants will result in their dismissal from this case.
Plaintiff should also articulate in what capacity he is
bringing claims against Defendants, whether it is in their
official or individual capacities or both. See Monell v.
Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91
shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to
file his Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is warned that
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint
completely replaces the original
and amended complaints, and claims that are not re-alleged
are deemed abandoned. See, e.g., In re Wireless Telephone
Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation,396 F.3d 922, 928
(8th Cir. 2005). If Plaintiff fails to ...