Hall v. State of Missouri et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that "Plaintiffs Amended Civil Rights Complaint" filed on August 23, 2018, which I construe as a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED. [ECF NO. 31 ]. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 8/27/18. (EAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ARIZONA HALL, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-CV-291 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This closed case is before the Court on review of the file. On August 23, 2018, pro se
plaintiff Arizona Hall, Jr. filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Amended Civil Rights Complaint,”
which I will construe as a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Civil Rights Complaint.
For the following reasons, I will deny the motion.
On January 4, 2017, I dismissed this pro se § 1983 civil rights action with prejudice as
being malicious. See ECF No. 17. In addition to my finding of maliciousness, plaintiff had
attempted to sue entities and persons who cannot be held liable under § 1983. See id. (citing
cases barring actions based on judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity, and sovereign
immunity). Furthermore, because a judgment in this § 1983 case would have necessarily implied
the invalidity of plaintiff’s criminal conviction, I found this § 1983 action Heck barred. Id.
Plaintiff appealed my ruling, and the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals summarily affirmed my
dismissal in a judgment dated June 1, 2017. See ECF No. 28.
Initially when plaintiff had filed this case, he had sought relief under § 1983 and had
added claims seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In a Memorandum and Order
dated September 9, 2016, I instructed plaintiff to file an amended complaint raising only his §
1983 civil rights claims, and directed the court clerk to send plaintiff a § 2254 form to use if he

wished to file a separate habeas corpus petition. See ECF No. 10. Pursuant to my instructions,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint in this case (see ECF No. 11), and filed a separate § 2254
action, which was captioned Hall v. State of Missouri, 4:16-CV-1528 AGF (E.D. Mo. filed Sept.
26, 2016) (“§ 2254 Action”). It is this amended complaint, docketed on September 26, 2016,
that I dismissed with prejudice as being malicious.
Based on plaintiff’s cover letter dated August 20, 2018 accompanying his newly-filed
“Plaintiff’s Amended Civil Rights Complaint,” plaintiff is attempting for a second time to file an
amended compliant based on my instructions in my Memorandum and Order dated September 9,
2016. He attaches to his cover letter an “Amended Civil Rights Complaint” dated March 26,
2018, which he had captioned with this case’s number. When the Clerk’s Office received this
“Amended Civil Rights Complaint” on March 26, 2018, it noted that this case had been
dismissed with prejudice on January 4, 2017, and affirmed on appeal June 1, 2017. Because this
case was closed, the Clerk’s Office changed the case number on the caption of plaintiff’s
“Amended Civil Rights Complaint” dated March 26, 2018 to that of plaintiff’s open and pending
§ 2254 Action, 4:16-CV-1528 AGF, and filed it in that § 2254 Action. See § 2254 Action, ECF
No. 52.
Now, plaintiff alleges that “Amended Civil Rights Complaint” dated March 26, 2018
should have been filed, as he had captioned it, in this closed § 1983 civil rights action and not in
his then-open § 2254 Action. See ECF No. 31-1 (plaintiff’s cover letter). He attaches to his
cover letter dated August 20, 2018 another “Plaintiff’s Amended Civil Rights Complaint” dated
August 23, 2018, which the Clerk of Court has filed in this closed case at Docket Number 31.
I will construe this document, “Plaintiff’s Amended Civil Rights Complaint” docketed
August 23, 2018 (ECF No. 31), as a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Civil Rights
Complaint, and will deny the motion. I dismissed this action with prejudice on January 4, 2017;

-2-

the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals summarily affirmed my dismissal on June 1, 2017. This
case is closed. Plaintiff will not be granted leave to reopen it by filing another amended
complaint. Plaintiff’s explanation that he attempted to file an amended complaint in this case on
March 26, 2018 (after it was already closed), and that the Clerk’s Office docketed that amended
complaint in his § 2254 Action (which was open), is of no consequence.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Amended Civil Rights Complaint” filed on
August 23, 2018, which I construe as a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint
is DENIED. [ECF NO. 31]
Dated this 27th day of August, 2018.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-