McDaniel v. City of Warrenton et al

Filing 11

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of this action [ECF No. 10] is DENIED. 10 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 11/21/14. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JASMINE MCDANIEL,
Plaintiff.
v.
CITY OF WARRENTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14CV1665 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s
dismissal of her pro se complaint. [ECF No. 10]. Plaintiff’s complaint, which was brought
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Warrenton, the prosecutor from her criminal case, her
public defender, and the judge, requested that the Court vacate her sentence and order that she be
released from prison immediately.
The Court dismissed the complaint because challenges to the validity of a prisoner’s
confinement or to matters affecting its duration fall within the province of habeas corpus and,
therefore, must be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
489 (1973). Further, the Court found that plaintiff failed to state claims against the prosecutor,
public defender, and judge, because of the immunity associated with their respective positions.
See Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261, 1266 (8th Cir. 1996); Polk County v. Dodson, 454
U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff has not set forth any meritorious grounds for review of the dismissal of this
action in her motion. As such, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal
of this action [ECF No. 10] is DENIED.
Dated this 21st day of November, 2014.

________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-