Ballard v. City of St. Louis et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE within thirty (30) days of the date of this Memorandum and Order why this case should not be STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pursuant to the principles establish ed in Wallace v. Kato. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to file a response to the Order to Show Cause within thirty (30) days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, plaintiffs case will bedismissed, without prejudice, for failure to respond to a Court Order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41. Show Cause Response due by 10/15/2013. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 9/12/2013. (KSH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
(I')SLA BALLARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-1772 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s complaint.
Plaintiff, who refers to himself as a “free Moor,” brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 asserting violations of his Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure and false
arrest.
In his complaint, plaintiff complains that on June 29, 2013 he pulled over while driving in
his vehicle because of mechanical issues. After he pulled over, he states that two St. Louis City
police officers stopped behind him and charged him with impeding the flow of traffic and failing
to produce his driver’s license. Plaintiff states that he was “falsely arrested” taken to the St. Louis
City jail and “unlawfully searched” by a third St. Louis City police officer and then booked.
Plaintiff claims that the police officers interfered with the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,”
and he claims that they broke the “Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Morocco and the United
States” when they refused to accept his “national Private Sovereign Vehicle Tags” and unreasonably

seized his “travel papers.” In short, he claims several violations of his Fourth Amendment rights
relating to his June 29, 2013 arrest.1
Discussion
In Wallace v. Kato, the United States Supreme Court held that “the 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 “[f]alse
arrest and false imprisonment overlap; the former is a species of the latter.” Id. at 388. The Court
instructed that where “a 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 “speculate 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).

1

Prior to this case being filed, an underlying criminal case was filed against plaintiff in the
City of St. Louis, wherein he was charged with assault, resisting arrest and trespass in the first
degree. The criminal case remains pending and is set for trial on October 24, 2013. See Missouri
v. Ballard, No.1222-CR00037. However, his state criminal case does not appear to be related to the
instant allegations in this case. Rather, plaintiff filed a separate civil action relating to that arrest in
this Court on June 24, 2013, see Ballard v. City of St. Louis, 4:13-CV-1192 JCH (E.D. Mo.), that
was stayed and administratively closed on August 28, 2013. Plaintiff also recently filed a third
action in this Court on September 6, 2013, asserting violations of his civil rights relative to his
conditions of confinement at the Medium Security Institute in St. Louis. See Ballard v. City of St.
Louis, 4:13-CV-1773 HEA.

-2-

In this case, plaintiff specifically asserts a claim for false arrest relating to the events for
which he was arrested on June 29, 2013. He also asserts additional claims under the Fourth
Amendment, including claims for illegal search and seizure.
Although plaintiff states that he was arrested, charged and imprisoned on June 29, 2013, it
is unclear whether the charges were pursued by the prosecutor or dropped, whether he is currently
awaiting trial on those charges or if he has already been convicted for the offense for which he was
charged. As such, it is too early to determine whether a conviction in the criminal action relating
to plaintiff’s June 29, 2013, arrest will bar some or all of plaintiff’s current claims pursuant to the
principles of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), but this is a distinct possibility. See
id. at 487 n.6. After careful consideration, the Court finds that the principles established in Wallace
v. Kato dictate that further consideration of plaintiff’s § 1983 claims cannot go forward until
plaintiff has answered the aforementioned questions. Accordingly, plaintiff will be asked to show
cause why his case should not be stayed pursuant to the considerations outlined in Wallace v. Kato.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE within thirty (30) days
of the date of this Memorandum and Order why this case should not be STAYED and
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pursuant to the principles established in Wallace v. Kato.

-3-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to file a response to the Order to Show
Cause within thirty (30) days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, plaintiff’s case will be
dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to respond to a Court Order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41.

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 12th day of September, 2013.

-4-