Whitehead v. Board of Police Commissioners St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 09/28/2016. (KCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

CARLOS T. WHITEHEAD,
Plaintiff,
V.

BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS
ST. LOUIS METRO POLIT AN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al. ,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-CV-1249 NAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner, brings this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed the
allegations in the complaint, the Court finds that it must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Standard of Review

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed by a prisoner
if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To state a
claim for relief, a complaint must plead more than "legal conclusions" and " [t]hreadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements."
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for

relief, which is more than a "mere possibility of misconduct." Id. at 679. "A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. " Id. at 678.

Determining

whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679.

When reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court accepts the well-pled
facts as true. Furthermore, the Court liberally construes the allegations.

The Complaint
Plaintiff was at his friend's apartment on April 20, 2004, when defendant John
Applegate, along with other police officers, entered the apartment to search the premises. The
police officers found drugs and drug paraphernalia.

Plaintiff says Applegate made racially

disparaging remarks to him during the arrest and interrogation. During interrogation, Applegate
ordered plaintiff to confess to owning the drugs or he would send the evidence to the United
States Department of Justice.

Plaintiff claims that Applegate was motivated by race

discrimination.
As a result of the arrest, a Jury found plaintiff guilty of four counts of controlled
substance offenses.

United States v. Whitehead, 4:04-CR-531 JCH (E.D. Mo.). The Court

sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

United States v. Whitehead, No. 06-3278 (8th Cir. 2007).
Discussion
"Although the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, a district court may
properly dismiss [a] complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915[] when it is apparent the statute of
limitations has run." Myers v. Vogal, 960 F.2d 750, 751 (8th Cir. 1992). Section 1983 claims
are analogous to personal injury claims and are subject to Missouri's five-year statute of
limitations. Sulik v. Taney County, Mo., 393 F.3d 765, 766-67 (8th Cir. 2005); Mo . Rev. Stat.
§ 516.120(4). In this case, the limitations period ended more than seven years ago. As a result,
the case is dismissed as time-barred.
Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated

this~ of September, 2016.

.

~

# ~ft/~

~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3