Overbey v. Yoder et al

Filing 8

OPINION MEMORANDUM re: 7 MOTION to Reopen Case filed by Plaintiff Corey Overbey, 6 PRO SE MOTION To Waive Filing Fee filed by Plaintiff Corey Overbey. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to reopen this matter [Doc. #7] is DEN IED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to waive the initial partial filing fee of $1.00 [Doc. #6] is GRANTED. Plaintiff will not be required to pay a filing fee in this action at this time. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceed ings in this case are STAYED pending final disposition of the criminal charges pending against plaintiff in State v. Overbey, No. 17CG-CR01703-01 (32nd Judicial Circuit, Cape Girardeau County). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall notify the Co urt in writing concerning the final disposition of the criminal charges pending against him in State v. Overbey, No. 17CG-CR01703-01 (32nd Judicial Circuit, Cape Girardeau County). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case will remain ADMINISTRATIVELY CLO SED pending final disposition of the criminal charges against plaintiff, and may be reopened by plaintiff's filing of a motion to reopen the case after such final disposition of his criminal action, as well as all appeal and post-conviction proceedings. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 4/17/18. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
COREY OVERBEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
GABRIEL YODER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-CV-0053 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to reopen this matter, as well as his motion to waive
the initial partial filing fee. After review of plaintiff’s motions, as well as judicial records relating
to plaintiff’s state court criminal matters, the Court will decline to reopen the present action.
Moreover, plaintiff’s request to waive the $1.00 initial partial filing fee will be granted.
Background
Plaintiff filed this action on March 14, 2018, 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 tampering with his friend’s car1
without his permission and threatening another acquaintance with an automatic weapon after
getting into a verbal altercation with the acquaintance. Plaintiff additionally asserted that the
prosecutors in the case, Angel Woodruff and Chris Limbaugh, assisted Officer Yoder in falsely

1

In the complaint, plaintiff asserts that he had permission to drive his friend’s vehicle. However, at
the time of the incident, plaintiff’s license to drive in the State of Missouri was revoked.
Additionally, although plaintiff states in the complaint that he did not threaten the acquaintance
with the automatic weapon, he allegedly admitted to living in the same home as the individual who
owned the weapon, despite being a convicted felon.

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.2
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 tampering with a motor vehicle,
unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful use of a weapon. State v. Overbey, No.
17CG-CR01703-01 (32nd Judicial Circuit, Cape Girardeau County).
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. The Court has reviewed the pendency of
the state criminal proceedings on Missouri.Case.Net and found that the proceedings are still
ongoing. Jury trial in plaintiff’s criminal proceedings is currently scheduled for July 30, 2018.
State v. Overbey, No. 17CG-CR01703-01 (32nd Judicial Circuit, Cape Girardeau County).
Discussion
Plaintiff admits in his motion to reopen that his state criminal proceedings are still
ongoing, but he claims that this Court must intervene in the criminal proceedings because he
believes his rights are being violated in his state proceedings. Plaintiff has not indicated exactly
how he believes his rights are being violated, and there is no indication that his criminal attorney
cannot bring his claims to the state court Judge currently assigned to his criminal action.

2

Plaintiff also asserts that defendants City of Cape Girardeau and County of Cape Girardeau fail to
train police officers in proper investigation techniques and allow officers to pursue cases without
probable cause.

-2-

Moreover, this Court is authorized to issue writs of mandamus or other extraordinary
writs only in aid of its jurisdiction, either existing or potential. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a);
Middlebrooks v. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Circuit Court, Union County, 323 F.2d 485, 486 (8th
Cir.1963). And this Court has no jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state court action.
The Court has already explained to plaintiff that his § 1983 claims for relief against
defendants must be stayed pending the outcome of his criminal proceedings and post-conviction
relief. And if plaintiff is convicted in his criminal proceedings, plaintiff will not be able to seek
damages in this action against the current defendants for violations of his constitutional rights.
See, e.g., 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). Furthermore, to the extent plaintiff can be understood to ask this Court to
dismiss, enjoin, or otherwise intervene in his ongoing state criminal proceeding, his claims are
barred under the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). See also,
Gillette v. N. Dakota Disc. Bd. Counsel, 610 F.3d 1045, 1046 (8th Cir. 2010) (“[F]ederal courts
may not enjoin pending state court criminal proceedings absent a showing of bad faith,
harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable relief.”). As such,
plaintiff’s request to reopen this matter must be denied.
The Court will, however, grant plaintiff’s request to waive the initial partial filing fee of
$1.00 given his negative account balance in his prisoner account at this time.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reopen this matter [Doc. #7] is
DENIED.

-3-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to waive the initial partial filing
fee of $1.00 [Doc. #6] is GRANTED. Plaintiff will not be required to pay a filing fee in this
action at this time.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings in this case are STAYED pending
final disposition of the criminal charges pending against plaintiff in State v. Overbey, No.
17CG-CR01703-01 (32nd Judicial Circuit, Cape Girardeau County).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall notify the Court in writing concerning
the final disposition of the criminal charges pending against him in State v. Overbey, No.
17CG-CR01703-01 (32nd Judicial Circuit, Cape Girardeau County).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case will remain ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSED pending final disposition of the criminal charges against plaintiff, and may be
reopened by plaintiff’s filing of a motion to reopen the case after such final disposition of his
criminal action, as well as all appeal and post-conviction proceedings.
Dated this 17th day of April, 2018.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-