McCauley v. Shaw et al

Filing 6

OPINIOIN MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $4.77 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to Clerk, United States District Court, and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for an original p roceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings in this case are STAYED pending final disposition of the appellate proceedings and post-conviction proceedings against plaintiff relating to his criminal case of See State v. McCauley, Case No.142 2-CR02392-01 (21st Judicial Circuit, St. Louis City Court). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall notify the Court in writing concerning the final disposition of the criminal charges pending against him in See State v. McCauley, Case No.1422-CR0 2392-01 (21st Judicial Circuit, St. Louis City Court). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending final disposition of the appellate proceedings and post-conviction proceedings related to the criminal charges pending agai nst plaintiff in See State v. McCauley, Case No.1422-CR02392-01 (21st Judicial Circuit, St. Louis City Court). This case may be reopened by plaintiffs filing of a motion to reopen the case after such final disposition. 2 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 2/28/17. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JERRY LAJUAN MCCAULEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARCHIE SHAW, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17CV780 SPM

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff, Jerry McCauley, registration
no. 170121), an inmate at Algoa Correctional Center, for leave to commence this action without
payment of the required filing fee. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that plaintiff
does not have sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee and will assess an initial partial filing
fee of $4.77.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Furthermore, based upon a review of the complaint,
the Court will stay and administratively close this action pursuant to the Supreme Court case of
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007), based on the pendency of an underlying criminal case
against plaintiff that arises out of the same facts.
Background
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting violations of his Fourth
Amendment rights. Prior to this case being filed, a related underlying criminal case was filed
1

A review of plaintiff’s account indicates an average monthly deposit of $23.86, and an average
monthly balance of $.01. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee. Accordingly,
the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $4.77, which is 20 percent of plaintiff’s average
monthly deposit.

1

against plaintiff in Missouri State Court. See State v. McCauley, Case No.1422-CR02392-01
(21st Judicial Circuit, St. Louis City Court). After a jury trial in St. Louis City Court, plaintiff
was found guilty of Class A misdemeanors of resisting a lawful detention, § 575.150, RSMo
2000, and possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia, § 195.233, RSMo 2000. The
Honorable Dennis Schaumann sentenced plaintiff to one year in a Medium Security Institution
on each count. Plaintiff subsequently appealed his conviction to the Missouri Court of Appeals
where the matter is currently under review. See State v. McCauley, Case No. ED104138.
The State filed a cross-appeal of the trial court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion for
judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict as to one count of unlawful possession of a
firearm. The State’s appeal has been consolidated with plaintiff’s appeal. Id.
The Complaint
In this case, plaintiff asserts claims for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious
prosecution as a result of an alleged false arrest that allegedly occurred on June 19, 2014. He
brings this action against the seven St. Louis City Police Detectives who were involved in his
arrest, as well as an unnamed, Unknown Confidential Informant who was also part of his arrest.
In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the seven St. Louis City Police Detective
defendants started surveilling him, his car and his girlfriend’s residence during the week of June
2, 2014, acting on a “tip” from defendant Unknown Confidential Informant that plaintiff was
selling heroin. Plaintiff states that on June 12, 2014, defendant Shaw obtained a search warrant
from a St. Louis City Circuit Court Judge; however, plaintiff believes that the search warrant was
based on material misstatements and omissions of material facts.

Plaintiff claims that the

defendant Detectives gathered on June 19, 2014 to execute the warrant, waiting until plaintiff

2

showed up at his girlfriend’s residence. Plaintiff claims that when he exited the residence, he saw
the Detectives exit their car and he started running across a field and felt a pain in his right arm,
and found out he had been hit by a taser in his arm. He was then ordered by the Detectives to get
on the ground, and he states he was subdued by the defendant Detectives and “pounced upon”
until he was placed in handcuffs.
After plaintiff was taken into custody he claims that he was taken to his girlfriend’s
residence and both the residence and his car were searched and evidence was “manufactured” in
a ninety-minute search, which was used to “charge, indict and try” plaintiff. Plaintiff states that
this manufactured evidence was also used in a parole revocation hearing in order to revoke his
parole.
According to public records, a search of the residence resulted in finding in the kitchen,
heroin, a digital scale, sandwich bags, empty capsules, and a nine millimeter semi-automatic
pistol. Police also found two pairs of scissors with a white powder on them and a toothbrush in a
drawer in the kitchen. In the bathroom the officers located a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol
under the sink. See State of Missouri v. McCauley, No. ED104138, Appellant’s Brief, p. 6. In the
bedroom, police located a plastic bag of marijuana, approximately $5000 in cash, a .380
semi-automatic pistol, a prescription medicine and doctor’s cards for future appointments in the
plaintiff’s name. Also located was men’s clothing and bank statements addressed to the plaintiff.
In a separate closet, the officers located women’s clothing and ammunition and a box for a .380
caliber pistol. Id.
After a jury trial, plaintiff was found guilty, as noted above, of one count of unlawful
possession of a firearm, one count of possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia, and one

3

count of misdemeanor resisting arrest. See State v. McCauley, Case No.1422-CR02392-01 (21st
Judicial Circuit, St. Louis City Court).

The trial court then granted plaintiff’s motion for

acquittal as to the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm and sentenced plaintiff to one year
on each of the remaining counts. Id.
Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit arise under the Fourth Amendment and include: lack of
probable cause; false/misleading affidavit; plaintiff/manufacturing evidence; malicious
prosecution; false arrest; false imprisonment; warrantless search; warrantless seizure; and two
claims of excessive force, primarily against defendant Willis for shooting a Taser at plaintiff
during the course of his arrest.2
Discussion
In Wallace v. Kato, the United States Supreme Court held that Athe statute of limitations
upon a § 1983 claim seeking damages for a false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment,

2

Plaintiff also seems to generally claim excessive force against all seven Detectives for their part in
subduing him during handcuffing him during the course of his arrest. However, plaintiff’s
statements referencing excessive force against defendants are conclusory and if reviewed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 would not at this time survive initial review under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is “more than the
mere possibility of misconduct.”). The Court notes that an excessive force claim “is analyzed
under the Fourth Amendment’s ‘objective reasonableness’ standard.” Kuha v. City of Minnetonka,
328 F.3d 427, 434 (8th Cir.2003) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)). This test
“is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559
(1979). “[T]he ‘reasonableness’ inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question
is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable.’” Graham, 490 U.S. at 397. “[I]ts
proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case,
including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the
safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade
arrest by flight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. “The nature and quality of the intrusion on the
individual’s Fourth Amendment interests [must be balanced] against the importance of the
governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion.” United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 703
(1983).

4

where the arrest is followed by criminal proceedings, begins to run at the time the claimant is
detained pursuant to legal process.@ Wallace, 549 U.S. at 397. The Court observed that A[f]alse
arrest and false imprisonment overlap; the former is a species of the latter.@ Id. at 388. The Court
instructed that where Aa plaintiff files a false arrest claim before he has been convicted . . . it is
within the power of the district court, and in accord with common practice, to stay the civil
action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.@ Id. at 393-94.
Otherwise, the court and the parties are left to Aspeculate about whether a prosecution will be
brought, whether it will result in conviction, and whether the impending civil action will impugn
that verdict, all this at a time when it can hardly be known what evidence the prosecution has in
its possession.@ Id. at 393 (internal citation omitted).
In this case, plaintiff asserts claims for illegal seizure, false arrest and false imprisonment.
The principles of Wallace v. Kato dictate that further consideration of plaintiff’s § 1983 claims
should be stayed until the underlying criminal matter currently pending against plaintiff has been
resolved through criminal appeals, as well as through post-conviction processes.
Additionally, a stay or abstention until resolution of the criminal matter would be
appropriate because 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. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Schafer v. Moore,
46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir. 1995); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (applying rule in §
1983 suit seeking declaratory relief).
Accordingly,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc.
#2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $4.77
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance
payable to “Clerk, United States District Court,” and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his
prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for an original
proceeding.3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings in this case are STAYED pending
final disposition of the appellate proceedings and post-conviction proceedings against plaintiff
relating to his criminal case of See State v. McCauley, Case No.1422-CR02392-01 (21st Judicial
Circuit, St. Louis City Court).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall notify the Court in writing concerning
the final disposition of the criminal charges pending against him in See State v. McCauley, Case
No.1422-CR02392-01 (21st Judicial Circuit, St. Louis City Court).

3

After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner is required to make monthly payments
of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account. The agency
having custody of the prisoner will deduct the payments and forward them to the Court each time
the amount in the account exceeds $10. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED
pending final disposition of the appellate proceedings and post-conviction proceedings related to
the criminal

charges

pending against

plaintiff in

See State v. McCauley, Case

No.1422-CR02392-01 (21st Judicial Circuit, St. Louis City Court). This case may be reopened by
plaintiff=s filing of a motion to reopen the case after such final disposition.
Dated this 28th day of February, 2017

___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7