United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. COLLINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on pro se plaintiff's
“Motion Requesting Additional Time to File His Motion
to Alter or Amend Judgment and Granting Leave to Attach and
Incorporate Critical Discovery Material.” ECF No. 18.
The Court dismissed this matter on September 18, 2019. ECF
No. 13. The Court previously granted plaintiff's request
for an extension until October 18, 2019, to file a motion to
alter or amend judgment. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff now requests
an extension until October 28, 2019, to file his motion in
order to “perfect and authenticate his claim.”
ECF No. 18 at 5. In his motion that is now before the Court,
plaintiff argues the legal merits of his case and requests
that the Court grant him leave to attach and incorporate
critical discovery material that is currently under
“this Court's Protect Orders.” Id.
Court will grant plaintiff the additional ten days to file
his motion to alter or amend, but no further extensions will
be allowed. To the extent that plaintiff argues the legal
merits of altering or amending the judgment in his motion for
an extension of time, the motion is denied. The Court warns
plaintiff that he must include all of his legal arguments for
amendment of the judgment in his motion requesting such
relief. Any legal arguments regarding amending judgment made
in his motion for an extension of time, will not be
plaintiff requests leave to provide the Court with discovery
material. Plaintiff does not clarify, but presumably this
discovery is from his past criminal matter which is the
foundation for the § 1983 claims made in this case.
See U.S. v. Dillon et al., No. 4:17-CR-95-RWS (E.D.
Mo. Mar. 1, 2017) (Plaintiff is one of three defendants
charged with conspiracy to distribute, and possess with the
intent to distribute, five kilograms or more of cocaine;
however, the indictment against plaintiff in this matter was
dismissed on June 12, 2017.). From what the Court can infer,
plaintiff is asking the Court's permission to include
these documents because they fall under a protective order
entered in the prior case. Plaintiff does not explain what is
contained in these discovery materials or how these materials
are relevant to this case. Plaintiff simply states that the
discovery materials are “proof of [his] claims that
there was a lack of probable cause to indict, arrest, and
detain him.” ECF No. 18 at 4.
the Court did not dismiss this matter based on the issue of
probable cause. The Court dismissed plaintiff's §
1983 claims here, finding that all three defendants were
protected by absolute immunity from suit as grand jury
witnesses or in the role of criminal prosecutors. ECF No. 12.
The Court fails to see how discovery materials from
plaintiff's drug conspiracy case could influence the
finding of absolute immunity granted to defendants here, and
plaintiff makes no argument that it could. In his motion,
plaintiff cites cases relating to the Fourth Amendment
probable cause standard and qualified immunity. See
Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S.Ct. 911,
919 (2017) (holding plaintiff stated a Fourth Amendment claim
when he sought relief for his pretrial detention);
Greenman v. Jessen, 787 F.3d 882, 890 (8th Cir.
2015) (holding police officers and prosecutor entitled to
qualified immunity protection from § 1983 claims);
New v. Denver, 787 F.3d 895, 902 (8th Cir. 2015)
(holding police officer is entitled to qualified immunity on
Fourth Amendment claim); Peterson v. City of
Plymouth, 60 F.3d 469, 477 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding one
defendant police officer not entitled to qualified immunity
because arrest warrant was not supported by probable cause).
These cases do not relate to the absolute immunity finding
that lead to the dismissal of this suit. Plaintiff seeks to
argue the underlying legal merits of his case but he does not
explain how any of the protected discovery material relates
to the Court's absolute immunity finding.
addition, based on a review of the Court's records, the
Court notes that plaintiff still has charges pending against
him in a separate criminal matter. See U.S. v.
Velazquez, No. 4:15-CR-404-HEA (E.D. Mo. Aug. 26, 2015)
(plaintiff was named in the fourth superseding indictment
filed December 1, 2016). This thirty-four defendant, complex
case has been pending since 2015. Plaintiff was not the only
defendant named in both U.S. v. Dillon and U.S.
v. Velazquez, The cases appear to be based on some of
the same underlying facts. Given that the plaintiff has not
clarified exactly what protected materials he seeks to file
here; the Court is concerned about the danger of exposing
information relevant to a pending matter. Therefore, for this
reason as well, plaintiff's request to file protected
discovery materials from a different case will be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
pro se plaintiff Michael Grady's motion for an
extension of time [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED
only to the extent that plaintiff now has until October 28,
2019, to file a motion to alter or amend judgment in this
matter. All other requested relief is denied.
 When the indictment was returned
against plaintiff in U.S. v. Dillon et al., No.
4:17-CR-95-RWS (E.D. Mo. Mar. 1, 2017), plaintiff was already
in custody on other criminal charges relating to the
distribution and possession of controlled substances. See
U.S. v. ...