Huson v. St. Louis County Circuit Court Divion 19
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 12/15/16. (JAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JAMES STARLING HUSON, JR.,
ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
DIVISION 19, et al.,
No. 4:16-CV-1602 JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The motion is granted. Plaintiff has no means to pay any portion of the filing
fee. So, the filing fee is waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). Additionally, after consideration,
this action is dismissed as frivolous.
Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis 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. § 1915(e), the Court accepts the well-pied
facts as true. Furthermore, the Court liberally construes the allegations.
Plaintiff brings this action against the St. Louis County Circuit Court and the Hon. Gloria
C. Reno, Circuit Judge. In 2007, plaintiff pied guilty to stealing a motor vehicle and resisting
arrest. He has served both prison time and probation as a result. He now alleges that there was
no factual basis for his plea. He says he spent too long in confinement and on probation. And he
says he has been forced to pay restitution as well. He seeks to amend the 2007 judgment to
lesser charges and money damages.
Plaintiffs complaint is legally frivolous as to Judge Reno because judges are "entitled to
absolute immunity for all judicial actions that are not 'taken in a complete absence of all
jurisdiction."' Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Mireles v.
Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)).
Additionally, the complaint fails to state a claim against the Circuit Court because it
cannot be sued under § 1983. E.g., Barket, Levy & Fine, Inc. v. St. Louis Thermal Energy
Corp., 948 F.2d 1084, 1086 (8th Cir. 1991) (agency exercising state power is not "person"
subject to § 1983 suit).
Finally, a prisoner may not recover damages in a§ 1983 suit where the judgment would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, continued imprisonment, or sentence unless
the conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged, or called into question by issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Because plaintiff challenges
the validity of his judgment, this action is also barred by Heck. The only method for challenging
a state criminal judgment in federal court is through a habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith.
Dated this 15th day of December, 2016.
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?