Phillips v. Dunn et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to issue process on the complaint. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 12/12/16. (CAR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CLINT PHILLIPS, III,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
M. DUNN, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:16-CV-1698 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The motion is granted.
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 under § 1983, 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.

The Complaint
Plaintiff sues police officer M. Dunn and the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors. In May
2016, at about two o’clock in the morning, plaintiff knocked on a neighbor’s door, had a
discussion, and left. Subsequently, he was questioned by several officers with regard to a
suspected burglary that occurred in the immediate area. He says he cooperated and answered all
of their questions. They left, and defendant Dunn returned a few minutes later.
Dunn took plaintiff to the police station and detained him for six or seven hours, until
about nine o’clock in the morning. Plaintiff says Dunn had no probable cause for the detention.
Plaintiff says that the practice of unlawful detentions “is so widespread by the City of
Bellefontaine Neighbors . . . that it has the force of policy and is one of their customs.”
Discussion
The Court finds that this action should not be dismissed at this time. As a result, it will
order the Clerk to serve defendants with process.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to issue process on the
complaint.
Dated this 12th day of December, 2016.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2