Carter v. Tempermire et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 8 MOTION to Reopen Case filed by Plaintiff Marico Carter - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to reopen the present action [Doc. #8] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 1/18/2018. (JMC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
MARICO CARTER,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
TRAVIS TEMPERMIRE, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 1:17-CV-203 NAB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to reopen the instant matter. After reviewing
plaintiff’s motion, as well as the pendency of the underlying criminal cases on Missouri
Case.Net, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motion.
Background
Plaintiff filed this action on November 20, 2017, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiff asserted that he was being falsely
imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted for the alleged crime of attempting to sell a white
substance to an undercover officer, defendant Travis Templemire1, as heroin for an amount of
$1,850.00. Plaintiff additionally asserted that the prosecutor in the case, Russell Oliver, assisted
Officer Templemire in falsely accusing plaintiff and imprisoning him on these charges.
Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit included: lack of probable cause; false arrest; false
imprisonment; and malicious prosecution.
Prior to this case being filed, an underlying criminal case was filed against plaintiff in
Missouri State Court. In that case, plaintiff was charged with the felony delivery or manufacture
1
Plaintiff has identified this defendant as both “Tempermire” and “Templemire.” The Court is
unsure of the correct spelling of defendant’s name.
of an imitation of a controlled substance, in violation of Mo.Rev.Stat. § 195.242. The case was
consolidated with several other state criminal cases prior to trial. See State v. Carter, Case No.
16DU-CR01458 (35th Judicial Circuit, Dunklin County Court). Plaintiff pled guilty to the
delivery or manufacture of imitation of a controlled substance and was sentenced on January 10,
2018, to seven (7) years’ imprisonment.2
Based on the pendency of the underlying criminal cases against plaintiff that arose out of
the same facts, the Court stayed the § 1983 action pursuant to Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384
(2007). At the time it stayed the present action, plaintiff had not yet pled guilty or been sentenced
to the underlying state crime. Plaintiff was instructed that he could seek to reopen the present
matter after culmination of the underlying state case.
Discussion
In the instant motion, plaintiff seeks to reopen the instant § 1983 action against state
prosecutor Russell Oliver and police officer Travis Templemire.
He claims that his state
criminal action is now complete. Plaintiff, however, may not recover damages in a § 1983 suit
where the judgment would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, continued
imprisonment or sentence unless his conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged or called into
question by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
(1994); Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir. 1995); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648
(1997) (applying rule in § 1983 suit seeking declaratory relief). Therefore, this Court may not
reopen the present action unless plaintiff is able to overturn his conviction in State v. Carter,
2
Prior to the case going to trial in Dunklin County, the case was docketed as State v. Carter, Case
No. 16SD-CR01143-02 (35th Judicial Circuit, Dunklin County Court). This case was
consolidated into two other cases for the purposes of a plea deal, and it is now docketed as State
v. Carter, Case No. 16DU-CR01458 (35th Judicial Circuit, Dunklin County Court).
2
Case No. 16DU-CR01458 (35th Judicial Circuit, Dunklin County Court), through appeal or by a
writ of habeas corpus.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reopen the present action [Doc.
#8] is DENIED.
Dated this 18th day of January, 2018.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?