Nappier v. Lichter et al

Filing 14

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of this action [Doc. # 10 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for temporary restraining order [Doc. # 9 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this Memorandum and Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 10/23/17. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
PATRICIA A. NAPPIER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROY L. RICHTER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17CV2580 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are plaintiff’s post-dismissal motions for temporary restraining order
and for reconsideration of the dismissal of this action. The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s
motions and will deny her request to re-open this matter as well as her request for injunctive
relief.
Background
Plaintiff, Patricia A. Nappier, has filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging violations of her due process rights. In her complaint filed on October 13, 2017, she
claimed that Missouri State Court Judges Roy L. Richter, Joseph L. Goff, Jr., Phillip M. Hess
and Lawrence E. Mooney denied her constitutional rights when they were assigned to review
rent/real estate action(s) she had against her brother over the course of an eighteen (18) year
period.
Specifically, plaintiff claimed that over the course of the long litigation against her
brother, John Forrester, the Judges violated her rights when they: failed force Forrester to sell
Nappier the property at a price under the appraised value; failed to recuse themselves on appeal
from matters they had knowledge of in the trial court; and affirmed Forrester’s possession of the

property which Nappier believed was unclear and contradictory to the original order allowing her
to purchase the property from Forrester.
In her request for relief, plaintiff sought an injunction to “stay all decrees from the
Missouri Court of Appeals” and a mandatory injunction allowing her to retrieve her personal
belonging from the property in St. Francois County. Plaintiff also sought injunctive relief to
prevent any condemnation proceedings on the property. In addition, plaintiff sought
compensatory damages and punitive damages.
On October 17, 2017, after granting plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the
Court dismissed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, finding that the defendant Judges were
entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial actions. See Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786,
789 (8th Cir. 2003). Additionally, the Court noted that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction
over challenges to state court decisions, in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings.
See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983).
In her request for reconsideration of the dismissal, plaintiff refers the Court to her motion
for temporary restraining order, seeking a reversal of this Court’s decision to dismiss this action.
Plaintiff states that Judge Roy Richter should not have sat on both the trial court in the 2012
matter, as well as the appellate court in 2017 regarding the same matter. Plaintiff states that she
has asked for Judge Richter to be removed from the appellate panel but had her request denied.
Thus, she believes that this court has “concurrent jurisdiction” to remove Judge Richter from the
appellate panel and prevent Judge Richter from issuing further decrees in her case in the
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Discussion

2

Plaintiff has not provided a sufficient argument for revisiting the dismissal of this action
or for intervening in her Missouri State Court case. As noted in the Court’s Memorandum and
Order issued on October 17, 2017, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction “over
challenges to state court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if
those challenges allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional. Review of those
decisions may be had only in [the United States Supreme Court].” District of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983). As a consequence, the Court will not grant
plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration or her motion for temporary restraining order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal
of this action [Doc. #10] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order
[Doc. #9] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this Memorandum and Order would not
be taken in good faith.
Dated this 23rd day of October, 2017

___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3