Bell v. Ste. Genevieve County et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all proceedings in this case are STAYED pending final disposition of the above-referenced criminal charges currently pending against plaintiff in Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 397 (2007). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall notify the Court in writing concerning the final disposition of the above-referenced state criminal charges pending against him, no later than thirty (30) days after final disposit ion of the state charges; plaintiff shall include the names of the parties, the court in which the case was pending, and the case number. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending final disposition of the state criminal charges against plaintiff, and may be reopened by plaintiff's filing of a motion to reopen the case after such final disposition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED without prejudice. A separate order to stay and administratively close this case shall accompany this memorandum and order. Response to Court due by 7/28/2014. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 6/27/14. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
JOSHUA AARON BELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
STE. GENEVIEVE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:14-CV-94-SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff's complaint [Doc. #1].
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Ste. Genevieve County Jail, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The named defendants are Ste. Genevieve County,
St. Francois County, Michael Bauer (a police officer), Chris Roemer (a police
officer), Gary J. Stolzer (a sheriff), Dan Bullock (a sheriff), and Allen Wells (the
Central Dispatch director for Ste. Genevieve County and St. Francis County).
Plaintiff alleges that he was the subject of an unconstitutional search and arrest at his
home in Ste. Genevieve County on April 7, 2014. Plaintiff states that defendants
Bauer and Roemer "conducted a search for drugs and drug paraphernalia. They did
not have probable cause to do this."
The Court takes judicial notice that plaintiff's April 7 arrest was followed by
criminal proceedings.
More specifically, prior to this case being filed, an
underlying state criminal case was filed against plaintiff in Ste. Genevieve County,
wherein he was charged with possession of a controlled substance, unlawful use of
drug paraphernalia - amphetamine/methamphetamine, resisting arrest, endangering
the
welfare
of
a
child
(two
counts),
delivering/attempting
to
deliver/possess/deposit/conceal a controlled substance at a jail, and unlawful use of
drug paraphernalia. See State of Mo. v. Bell, No. 14SG-CR00180-01 (24th Judicial
Circuit 2014). It appears from the docket posted on Missouri.Case.Net that this
criminal case remains pending and has a trial date of July 15, 2014.
Discussion
In Wallace v. Kato, the United States Supreme Court held that Athe statute of
limitations upon a ' 1983 claim seeking damages for a false arrest in violation of the
Fourth Amendment, where the arrest is followed by criminal proceedings, begins to
run at the time the claimant is detained pursuant to legal process.@ Wallace, 549
U.S. 384, 397 (2007).
The Court observed that A[f]alse arrest and false
imprisonment overlap; the former is a species of the latter.@ Id. at 388. The Court
instructed that where Aa plaintiff files a false arrest claim before he has been
convicted . . . it is within the power of the district court, and in accord with common
practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal
case is ended.@ Id. at 393-94. Otherwise, the court and the parties are left to
2
Aspeculate about whether a prosecution will be brought, whether it will result in
conviction, and whether the impending civil action will impugn that verdict, all this
at a time when it can hardly be known what evidence the prosecution has in its
possession.@ Id. at 393 (internal citation omitted).
In the instant case, plaintiff specifically asserts a claim for false arrest relating
to the events for which he was arrested on April 7, 2014. He also asserts additional
claims under the Fourth Amendment for illegal search and seizure.
It is too early to determine whether a conviction in the criminal action relating
to plaintiff=s April 2014 arrest will bar some or all of plaintiff=s claims pursuant to
the principles of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), but this is a
possibility. See id. at 487 n.6. Nevertheless, after careful consideration, the Court
finds that the principles established in Wallace v.
Kato dictate that further
consideration of plaintiff=s ' 1983 claims should be stayed until the underlying
criminal charges pending against him are resolved.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all proceedings in this case are STAYED
pending final disposition of the above-referenced criminal charges currently
pending against plaintiff in Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. See Wallace v. Kato,
549 U.S. 384, 397 (2007).
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall notify the Court in writing
concerning the final disposition of the above-referenced state criminal charges
pending against him, no later than thirty (30) days after final disposition of the state
charges; plaintiff shall include the names of the parties, the court in which the case
was pending, and the case number.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSED pending final disposition of the state criminal charges against plaintiff,
and may be reopened by plaintiff=s filing of a motion to reopen the case after such
final disposition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED
without prejudice.1
A separate order to stay and administratively close this case shall accompany
this memorandum and order.
Dated this 27th day of June, 2014.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
If, and when, plaintiff files a motion to reopen this case following final disposition
of the state criminal charges against him, the Court will re-evaluate his in forma
pauperis status to determine the sufficiency of his inmate funds.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?