Priester v. Nester

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 5/2/14. (JWD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT PRIESTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
GERARD NESTER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14CV810 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. The motion will be granted. Additionally, having reviewed the
case, the Court will dismiss it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
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).
The Complaint
Plaintiff, who is civilly committed in the St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Center, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against his state-appointed
guardian. According to the complaint and the exhibits, plaintiff has been asking
his guarding to agree to expungement of his arrest records. His guardian objected
to expungement in court. Plaintiff asserts a constitutional right to expungement of
his arrest records.
Plaintiff requests that this court order his immediate release from
confinement and award him unspecified money damages.
Discussion
The complaint fails to state a claim under § 1983 because plaintiff has failed
to demonstrate a constitutional violation. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional
right to expungement of his arrest records. E.g., Duke v. White, 616 F.2d 955, 956
(6th Cir. 1980) (“The right to expungement of state records is not a federal
constitutional right.”). As a result, the Court will dismiss this action under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e).
To the extent that plaintiff seeks release from confinement, he must seek
relief by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Such relief is not available in a
§ 1983 suit.
-2-

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
A separate Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith.
Dated this 2nd day of May, 2014.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-