Smith-El v. A Construction Company et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for copies [Doc. # 7 ] is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff may review, in person at the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the attachmen ts to his complaint [Doc. # 2 ] currently filed under seal. If he wishes to make copies of Docket No. 2 he must pay for copies out of his own funds. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for rehearing and his supplementalmotion [Doc. #[ 9] and # 10 ] are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of these orders would not be taken in good faith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff may not file any additional motions in this CLOSED CASE.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 11/28/16. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JONATHAN SMITH-EL,
Plaintiff,

v.
A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16CV1743 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court are plaintiffs post-dismissal motion for copies and his motion, and
supplement, for "rehearing." [Doc. #7, #9 and # 1O]
Background

Plaintiff filed his complaint in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 8,
2016. Plaintiffs complaint in this action was filed following the dismissal

~fa

similar action in

this Court. See Smith v. State of Missouri, No. 2:15CV32 JMB (E.D.Mo. 2015). In his prior
action, plaintiff was denied a motion to reopen and/or amend his complaint on November 2,
2015.Jd.
Like his 2015 · action, in this action, plaintiffs complaint contains a myriad of claims
against many different defendants. Plaintiff asserts that he was subjected to false arrest, false
imprisonment, slander, unlawful conviction, malicious prosecution, deliberate indifference to his
medical needs (relating to fainting), various due process violations, failure to protect and
numerous claims challenging his conviction which are not cognizable in a § 1983 action.
Plaintiff also asserts that he was not lawfully given a chance to prosecute his 2015 action in this

Court when the Eighth Circuit gave him a "strike" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) during the
course of an interlocutory appeal in that action.
Because plaintiff had filed at least three previous cases that were dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or for failure to state a claim, the Court dismissed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). 1

The Court construes plaintiffs motion for ''rehearing," and his supplemental motion, as a
motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. [Doc. #9 and #10] Plaintiffs motion for copies
relates to plaintiffs failure to follow the Court's Local Rule 2.17 relating to redaction of personal
identifiers, causing an attachment to his complaint to be filed under seal. [Doc. #7]

Discussion
A. Plaintiffs Request for Copies
The Court will first address plaintiffs contentions relating to his motion for copies.
[Doc. #7] In his motion relating to his request for copies, plaintiff first seeks clarification as to
why his three-hundred seventy-three (373) pages of attachments to his complaint have been filed
under seal. [#2]
The attachments contain medical records, plaintiffs date of birth and social security
number. Local Rule 2.17 requires redaction of personal data such as social security numbers,
birth dates and other personal identifiers. Local Rule 2.17(B) specifically requires, in addition to
a redacted filing, having a plaintiff file under seal, either an unredacted copy of the documents or
a reference sheet containing a key to the redacted personal identifiers.
Because plaintiffs attachments to his complaint are so long, almost four-hundred (400)
pages, the Court will not require him to file both a redacted copy and an unredacted copy of his
1

Smith-EL v. Bowersox, 03-3457-CV-S-RED-P (W.D. Mo. 2004); Smith v. Lhotka, 4:97CV1940
(E.D.Mo. 1997); and Smith v. State ofMissouri, No. 15-2388 (8th Cir. December 29, 2015).
2

attachment. Nonetheless, it will reqmre him, in keeping with the Local Rule, to file the
unredacted copy of the attachment under seal in order to maintain the personal privacy of
plaintiffs personal identifiers and other medical information. This should clarify why Docket
No. 2 is required to be filed under seal in this case.
In his motion for copies, plaintiff appears to seek copies of several pages of his sealed
attachment. The Court does not provide free copies of documents, even if those documents were
filed by the parties themselves. All litigants are expected to keep a copy of their documents prior
to filing a copy with this Court. If they fail to do so, the Clerk's Office will make copies of
documents for the litigant at the rate of fifty cents (50¢) per page, prepaid.
To the extent plaintiff wishes to visit the Clerk's office and view the documents himself
at the front counter, he may have permission from this Court to do so. But to the extent he is
seeking free copies of such documents; his request will be denied without prejudice.
B. Plaintiff's Motion for Rehearing

In his motion for rehearing, or reconsideration of the dismissal of this action, plaintiff
rehashes his original assertions in his complaint. He claims that this Court should overturn his
original criminal action, from February of 2012, because he was subject to malicious
prosecution. Furthermore, he feels that he has been the subject of a conspiracy from government
officials since his incarceration, because he believes he has not received a fair hearing from
either the state or federal government on his original criminal charges.
Plaintiff believes that several state actors have engaged in a conspiracy to violate his rights
during his arrest, imprisonment and prosecution, and he would like this Court to grant him a
"certificate of innocence" under the law to allow for money damages on his behalf. Plaintiff also

3

disagrees with the judicial background in this action, wherein he was assessed a "strike" by the
Eighth Circuit for his litigation history.
The Court will deny plaintiffs request to reopen this action and for an award of
innocence in his 2012 state criminal action. This action is a closed action, and because plaintiff
is in custody and has three strikes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he is barred from proceeding
in forma pauperis in this action and he cannot sustain a new case in this Court without paying the
full filing fee.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for copies [Doc. #7] is DENIED IN
PART AND GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff may review, in person at the Federal District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the attachments to his complaint [Doc. #2] currently
filed under seal. If he wishes to make copies of Docket No. 2 he must pay for copies out of his
own funds.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for rehearing and his supplemental
motion [Doc. #9 and #10] are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of these orders would not be taken in good
. faith.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff may not file any additional motions in
this CLOSED CASE.
Dated this 28th day of November, 2016.

.ROSS
D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4