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.

White v. City of St. Louis

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

November 14, 2019

JAMAL WHITE, Plaintiffs,
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Defendants.



         This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [93]. The Court grants the Motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On April 6, 2018, Plaintiff Jamal White filed a complaint in this Court alleging Defendant Adam Feaman, a police officer with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, used excessive force against White in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; White alleges Feaman struck White in his jaw and cranium with a flashlight. White also named the City as a defendant but did not assert any counts against it. White sought to voluntarily dismiss his Complaint against all defendants without prejudice. The Court granted White's request, in part, and dismissed the City and Feaman in his official capacity, without prejudice, but did not dismiss the claim against Feaman in his individual capacity.

         On February 26, 2019, White filed an amended complaint against Feaman, in his official and individual capacities, the City, and Dan Isom, [1] in his official and individual capacities. In his Amended Complaint, White maintains his count of excessive force against Feaman in his individual capacity, and he adds counts against Feaman in his official capacity, and Isom and the City for failure to train and supervise in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. White brings his claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and asserts that the City has two policies and a custom that are the “moving force” behind the alleged unconstitutional conduct. He first alleges the two policies: (1) the “Normal” policy pursuant to which the City “normally” charges suspects on whom excessive force is used with resisting arrest in municipal court (rather than state court); and (2) the “Rec” policy under which municipal prosecutors will plea bargain and “recommend” dismissal of municipal-court-resisting-arrest-charges only if a defendant will sign a liability waiver releasing the City from any civil lawsuits. Doc. 62, ¶¶ 22-24. White then alleges St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (“SLMPD”) has a “custom” of “using unjustified force with impunity in any case that an offender runs, pulls away, or protest [sic].” Doc. 62, ¶ 55. White labels the “custom” as “you run, you pay” (“YRYP”). Doc. 99.

         In their Motion to Dismiss, the City, Feaman, and Isom, in their official capacities only (collectively, “Municipal Defendants”), seek to dismiss the claims against them for failure to state a claim, and, for redundancy. Specifically, Municipal Defendants assert White fails to state a claim for municipal liability because Municipal Defendants' policy prohibits using flashlights as impact weapons, White fails to plausibly allege Feaman cracked White's jaw because of Municipal Defendants' alleged policies, that Municipal Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a widespread pattern of unconstitutional misconduct, and that Municipal Defendants failed to train its police officers. Municipal Defendants also argue White's official capacity claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Feaman and Isom are redundant of the claims against the City.

         II. STANDARD

         Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a claim for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The notice pleading standard of FRCP 8(a)(2) requires a plaintiff to give “a short and plain statement . . . showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” To meet this standard and to survive a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted). This requirement of facial plausibility means the factual content of the plaintiff's allegations must “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Park Irmat Drug Corp. v. Express Scripts Holding Co., 911 F.3d 505, 512 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). The Court must grant all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Lustgraaf v. Behrens, 619 F.3d 867, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2010).

         When ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court must liberally construe a complaint in favor of the plaintiff. Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 592 F.3d 853, 862 (8th Cir. 2010). However, if a claim fails to allege one of the elements necessary to recovery on a legal theory, the Court must dismiss that claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Crest Constr. II, Inc. v. Doe, 660 F.3d 346, 355 (8th Cir. 2011). Threadbare recitals of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rule 8 does not “unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. “A pleading that merely pleads labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of factual enhancement will not suffice.” Hamilton v. Palm, 621 F.3d 816, 817 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). Although courts must accept all factual allegations as true, they are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotations and citation omitted); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78.

         Only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Therefore, a court must determine if the well-pleaded factual allegations “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. This “context-specific” task requires the court to “draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679, 682. In determining the plausibility of a plaintiff's claim, Iqbal and Twombly instruct the Court to consider whether “obvious alternative explanations” exist for the allegedly unconstitutional conduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 682; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 567. The Court must then determine whether the plaintiff plausibly alleges a violation of the law. Id. The well-pleaded facts must permit more than the “mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).


         Under Iqbal, the Court must parse out the factual allegations that it must accept as true and the conclusory allegations it can disregard. Here, the Court summarizes all of White's allegations, factual and conclusory, to provide context to the Court's analysis below.

         White alleges, that on August 14, 2016, Feaman, a patrol officer, sought to place White under arrest. A citizen bystander recorded the arrest on video. White states he did not have a firearm on his person and did not present a physical threat to Feaman. As White moved backward from Feaman, White questioned his impending arrest. Feaman became so enraged, White alleges, he struck White with his flashlight, cracking White's jaw. White collapsed to the ground and Feaman yelled “get on the mother f*ckin the [sic] ground.” Feaman then hovered over White, taunted him again, saying “Get on the mother f*cking the [sic] ground!” and struck White in the cranium. According to White, as a result of Feaman's actions, White required extensive medical care, sustained significant injuries, and suffered severe emotional and psychological distress.

         White alleges that although Feaman falsely claimed he was in fear for his life to justify his use of force against White, Feaman charged White in municipal court because he was not actually in fear and knew deadly force was not authorized. Prosecutors at the municipal court “aggressively” attempted to persuade White's defense counsel to sign a release of civil liability in exchange for dismissing the charges against White. White refused to sign the release and was “forced to withstand trial.” White alleges on September 30, 2017, Feaman discovered that White was seeking to file a lawsuit. Feaman located White in a local establishment and identified himself as a sworn police officer. Feaman threatened to “crack [White's] jaw again” until he was escorted out of the establishment.

         White alleges the excessive force Feaman used against him was the result of a widespread custom in the SLMPD of “you run, you pay” that was caused by the “Rec & Normal” policies. According to White, the “Rec & Normal” policies were created in 2012, when the SLMPD Chief of Police updated a special order and trained officers to “normally” charge any resisting arrest charge in municipal court rather than state court when the offender did not use force or threaten to use force, i.e. the “Normal” policy.[2] White alleges the City also enforced a mandatory policy, called the “Rec Policy.” In exchange for a city prosecutor's recommendation to dismiss a charge for resisting arrest in municipal court, the defendant signs a release of any civil liability that the City may have for use of excessive force against the defendant.

         The written “Normal” policy states, in part:

Under normal circumstances, the defendant will be charged with a city ordinance violation of resisting arrest or interfering with an officer. The information application will be made at the City Counselor's Office.

         The written “Rec” policy states, in part:

Resisting arrest & Interfering [sic] with a Police Officer charges cannot be amended without first obtaining a signed release from the defendant (See Sample).

         White alleges the Rec & Normal policies directly and indirectly motivate SLMPD officers to use excessive force or make false arrests with the protection of the City's municipal court. White claims this shield, “whether or not individually known to each SLMPD officer, was embedded in SLMPD training policies and practices.”

         According to White, prosecutors escorted unrepresented defendants into the hallway and explained that the prosecutor will dismiss or amend the charge if the defendants sign a blank form titled “Release.” Generally, the prosecutors complete the remaining lines of the form and defendants “have only seconds to decide to release his/her rights or face up to 90 days in jail.” Without legal representation, many of the accused, according to White, “were pressured and forced to sign the release in exchange for their freedom, even when they were innocent of the facts.”

         White alleges he has not found a single case where a release agreement was legally enforced against a plaintiff in federal court. The release was created for its “psychological and marketing effects that resulted and continue to cause censorship and prior restraints on accused victims . . . to petition the courts for redress of civil rights violations . . . Prosecutors and legal practitioners have been aware of the psychological effects of release agreements since 1987.”

         White alleges SLMPD learned of the release policy because executed release agreements were regularly sent to the SLMPD once completed. The release form specifically states the releasor agrees not to sue the SLMPD for injuries sustained during his/her arrest. White claims that but for the blanket policy, the SLMPD could have investigated the underlying facts precipitating the need for a release. Instead, the facts were ignored and the case considered closed because the SLMPD had an executed release agreement from the accused victim.

         White alleges the Rec & Normal policies caused and concealed a widespread pattern of civil rights abuses throughout the City that began with unlawful searches or excessive-use-of-force incidents and then escalated to illegal arrests and unjustified deadly force. White alleges regardless of whether an individual presents a physical threat, if the individual runs, protests, or walks away from an officer, the officer will use excessive to deadly force as his/her primary means of detaining the individual. Therefore, White alleges the Rec & Normal policies have established widespread systematic patterns of unlawful arrests and searches as retaliation for recording or protesting an officer's misconduct.

         White “defines SLMPD's widespread police misconduct as tyrannical practices” including the “use of excessive and unjustified deadly force when the accused victim runs, pulls away, or protests[, ]” and “unlawful arrests to search and destroy evidence.” The Complaint lists 16 examples of SLMPD pattern cases between 2013 through the present. White alleges by 2018, the alleged pattern and practices were so pervasive and widespread that SLMPD officers beat an undercover officer and claimed the officer resisted arrest. According to White, the common denominator in all of these cases is that the accused victim allegedly pulled away, ran, protested, or walked away, i.e., resisted arrest.


         In the Motion to Dismiss, Municipal Defendants argue White's Complaint fails to state a claim for municipal liability. Specifically, Municipal Defendants claim White fails to plausibly allege that Feaman cracked White's jaw because of the release policy, that the City was deliberately indifferent to a widespread pattern of unconstitutional misconduct, or that the City failed to train its officers on the use of excessive force. Municipal Defendants also state White's putative municipal liability claim fails because the City's policy prohibits the use of flashlights as impact weapons. Finally, Municipal Defendants assert White's § 1983 claims against Feaman and Isom in their official capacities are redundant of the municipal liability claims against the City.

         A. Municipal Liability

         Section 1983 of Title 42 allows individuals to bring causes of action for violations of the ...

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.