Moon v. Doerge et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff Darnell Wesly Moon motion is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this this action is DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 11/5/15. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DARNELL WESLY MOON,
CHARLES H. DOERGE, V, et al.,
No. 1:15CV142 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis,
as well as the filing of plaintiff’s amended complaint. After reviewing the financial information
presented with plaintiff’s amended complaint, the Court will grant plaintiff’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis. However, because plaintiff’s claims have been brought before this Court in a
prior matter that has previously been dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, see Moon v.
Unterreiner, No. 1:15CV160 SNLJ (E.D.Mo.), the Court finds that this action should be
dismissed as duplicative. See Cooper v. Delo, 997 F.2d 376, 377 (8th Cir. 1993) (§ 1915(e)
dismissal has res judicata effect on future IFP petitions).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is
frivolous if it Alacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.@ Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
328 (1989); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). An action is malicious if it is
undertaken for the purpose of harassing the named defendants and not for the purpose of
vindicating a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 461-63 (E.D.N.C. 1987),
aff=d 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not plead
Aenough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@ Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
In the instant case, plaintiff asserts that four United States Probation Officers - Toni
Smith, Mark Unterreiner, Brian Gray, and Charles Doerge - impeded upon his constitutional and
religious rights in violation of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42
U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.1 Plaintiff also names the agents’ employer, the United States of
America, as a defendant in this action.
Plaintiff states that he is a Muslim and is required to pray at least five times a day in a
mosque. He is challenging the terms and conditions relative to his electronic monitoring under
the U.S. Probation Home Confinement Program. Apparently, following the recent revocation of
his supervised release, plaintiff was placed on electronic monitoring so his probation officer
could monitor his movements. Plaintiff claims that the monitoring program is unconstitutional
and that defendants are interfering with his religious beliefs by requiring him to state the times he
is going to and leaving his mosque and not allowing him to simply sign out from 4 a.m. to 11
A review of Court records shows that on March 19, 2008, plaintiff pled guilty to one
count of armed robbery and one count of conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by
robbery, and he was sentenced to seventy-eight months’ imprisonment and three years of
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as
applied to states and their subdivisions in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (holding
that, as applied to states and localities, Congress had exceeded its power under section five of the
Fourteenth Amendment in enacting RFRA). RFRA remains enforceable against the federal
government, officers and agencies.
supervised release. See United States v. Moon, 1:07CR133 RWS (E.D. Mo.). Plaintiff was
released from BOP custody on January 27, 2015. On May 5, 2015, this Court revoked plaintiff’s
supervised release and sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment. Id. Plaintiff was then
assigned to the Home Confinement Program, under which he was electronically monitored. 2
Plaintiff is a frequent litigant before this Court. Currently, plaintiff has six open cases in
the Court, although he has brought no fewer than fifteen civil actions before this Court within the
last six years. The majority of plaintiff’s cases in this Court contain claims and defendants that
overlap into one another, most asserting what he believes to be violations of his religious rights.
Plaintiff has brought prior claims against these four agents in previous cases. See Moon
v. Pratte, No. 1:15CV187 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), Moon v. Pratte, No. 4:13CV2570 JAR (E.D.Mo.)
and Moon v. Unterreiner, No. 1:15CV160 SNLJ (E.D.Mo.).
In Moon v. Pratte, No. 4:13CV2570 JAR (E.D.Mo.) and Moon v. Pratte, No. 1:15CV187
SNLJ (E.D.Mo.), plaintiff’s similar allegations against Toni Smith were dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 review. In Moon v. Unterreiner, No. 1:15CV160 SNLJ (E.D.Mo.), plaintiff’s
similar claims against agents Mark Unterreiner, Brian Gray and Charles Doerge, were also
dismissed pursuant to § 1915 review.
In Moon v. Unterreiner, No. 1:15CV160 SNLJ (E.D.Mo.), this Court dismissed
plaintiff’s allegations pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Court noted that
the conditions of plaintiff’s electronic detention are part of the execution of his sentence and
plaintiff had not shown, at that time, that his conviction or sentence had been reversed,
expunged, invalidated or called into question. See Savickas v. Walker, 180 Fed. Appx. 592, 593594 (7th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff challenging electronic detention was Heck-barred from bringing §
On October 22, 2015, plaintiff’s location monitoring was suspended.
1983 action; by challenging the execution of his home confinement, plaintiff was attempting to
do exactly what Heck prohibits). Plaintiff’s allegations in this case concern his insistence that
defendants acted in an unconstitutional manner during the time in which he was under electronic
monitoring, and in fact, mirror his allegations of civil rights and religious discrimination as
outlined in his prior case before this Court. As such, this case must be dismissed as duplicative
of his prior case which is currently on appeal. See Moon v. Unterreiner, No. 1:15CV160 SNLJ
(E.D.Mo.). As set forth in Cooper v. Delo, 997 F.2d 376, 377 (8th Cir. 1993), this Court’s prior
§ 1915 dismissal of plaintiff’s action has a res judicata effect on his current action before this
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc.
#2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this this action is DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 5th day of November, 2015.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?