Moon v. Pratte et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's March 25, 2014 Order of Dismissal [Doc. #17] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amende d complaint [Doc. #17] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall detach the document attached to Docket No. 17 and file it as an amended complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief [Doc. #18] is DENIED AS MOOT. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the Court to take judicial notice/to supplement his amended complaint [Doc. #19] is DENIED. The Clerk shall strike plaintiff's notice from the Docket. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for status [Doc. #22 and #23] are DENIED AS MOOT given the Court's detailed explanation herein. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 6/18/14. (JWD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DARNELL MOON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

BARRON PRATTE, et al.,
Defendants,

No. 4:13CV2570 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are several post-dismissal motions filed by plaintiff in this action. The
Court will address each, in turn.
Background
Plaintiff, a detainee at Southeast Missouri Community Treatment Center, filed the instant
action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971), alleging violations of his civil rights. Plaintiff brought this action against twelve
named defendants, all of which appeared to be employees of the Southeast Missouri Community
Treatment Center. Plaintiff sought both monetary and injunctive relief in his complaint.
Upon review of plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court dismissed
plaintiff’s claims as either frivolous, or alternatively, for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted [Doc. #6 and #7].
Discussion
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of this action on April 9, 2014. See
Docket No. 13. Upon the filing of the notice of appeal, this Court lost jurisdiction to grant
plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration or to allow the filing of an amended complaint. See Griggs

v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (holding that “filing of a notice of
appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance – it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals
and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the
appeal.”). Thus, during the pendency of plaintiff’s appeal, the Court had jurisdiction only to
deny plaintiff’s many filings, including his motion for reconsideration, his motion to file an
amended complaint and his motion for preliminary injunction. [Doc. #17, #18 and #19].
On May 2, 2014, the Court received the mandate from the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals notifying it that plaintiff had dismissed his appeal. At that time, this Court again
attained jurisdiction over plaintiff’s case. Since that time, plaintiff has filed two motions seeking
the status of this action. [Doc. #22 and 23].
Plaintiff’s motion seeking a simple reconsideration of the dismissal of his action, Doc.
#17, will be denied, as he has not provided the Court with any grounds under which the Court’s
original dismissal Order, issued on March 25, 2014, should be set aside.
To the extent, however, that plaintiff is seeking permission to file an amended complaint,
see Docket No. 17, the Court will grant him leave to do so. The Court will ask the Clerk of
Court to file the document attached to Docket No. 17 as an amended complaint.
To the extent, however, that plaintiff is seeking to supplement his amended complaint by
filing a document entitled, “Judicial Notice,” see Docket No. 19, the Court will not allow him to
do so. The Court does not accept amendments by interlineation or through supplements.
Popoalii v. Correctional Medical Services, 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir.2008). As such, the Court
will order the Clerk to strike Docket No. 19.
As for plaintiff’s second motion for restraining order/injunctive relief, the Court will also
decline to grant the order at this time. In his motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff states that as

2

“retaliation for filing the instant lawsuit” defendants falsely accused him of escaping community
confinement and placed him in St. Genevieve County Jail. As his requested relief, plaintiff seeks
release from the jail. [Doc. #18]. On June 12, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address
with the Court, stating he had been released from the Jail and was currently being confined in
Southeast Missouri Community Center. As such, his request for injunctive relief is moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s
March 25, 2014 Order of Dismissal [Doc. #17] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended
complaint [Doc. #17] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall detach the document attached to
Docket No. 17 and file it as an amended complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief [Doc. #18] is
DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the Court to take judicial
notice/to supplement his amended complaint [Doc. #19] is DENIED. The Clerk shall strike
plaintiff’s notice from the Docket.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for status [Doc. #22 and #23] are
DENIED AS MOOT given the Court’s detailed explanation herein.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s amended complaint shall be subject to
review under 28 U.S.C. 1915A for frivolousness, maliciousness and for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted by separate Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 18th day of June, 2014.

_______________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4