Clemons v. Brauer et al

Filing 8

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, pursuant to the service agreement the Court maintains with City Counselors Office, as to defendants Josep h Brauer, Chris Pappas, Ben Coleman, and Nels C. Moss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as to defendants Steven Jacobsmeyer, Raymond Grist, Robert Meyer, David A. Robbins, Gary Stittum, James Conway, Nessby Moore, Jr., Rita M. Kraph, Robert Scheetz, Robe rt Bauman, Daniel Nichols, Mike Guzzy, Richard Trevor, John Walsh, Joseph Nickerson, George Bender, Jack Huelsmann, and Harry B. Hegger, Vincent C. Schoemehl, the Board of Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police Department of the St. Louis City, and the Supervisory Board of the Metropolitan Police Department of St. Louis City the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 7/12/18. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
REGINALD CLEMONS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH BRAUER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17CV2739 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on initial review of plaintiff Reginald Clemons’ complaint
for violations of his civil rights brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. After
reviewing the complaint, the Court will order the Clerk of Court to issue process or cause
process to be issued on the complaint as to defendants Joseph Brauer, Chris Pappas, Ben
Coleman, and Nels C. Moss.
Legal Standard on Initial Review
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a prisoner’s civil action seeking damages from an officer
or employee of a governmental entity is subject to initial review regardless of whether the
prisoner has paid the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court is required to dismiss
the complaint 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. § 1915A, the Court accepts the well-pled
facts as true. Furthermore, the Court liberally construes the allegations.
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his First, Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Named as defendants
are the following former St. Louis City Police Department employees: Joseph Brauer, Chris
Pappas, Steven Jacobsmeyer, Raymond Grist, Robert Meyer, David A. Robbins, Gary Stittum,
James Conway, Nessby Moore, Jr., Rita M. Kraph, Robert Scheetz, Robert Bauman, Daniel
Nichols, Mike Guzzy, Richard Trevor, John Walsh, Joseph Nickerson, George Bender, Jack
Huelsmann, and Harry B. Hegger. Also named as defendants are Nels C. Moss, former St. Louis
City Prosecutor; Ben Coleman, former St. Louis City Probation and Parole Supervisor; Vincent
C. Schoemehl, former Mayor of St. Louis City; the Board of Commissioners of the Metropolitan
Police Department of the St. Louis City; and the Supervisory Board of the Metropolitan Police
Department of St. Louis City.
Plaintiff alleges these defendants violated his constitutional rights when they coerced two
audio-taped statements from him on April 7, 1991. In these statements, plaintiff incriminated
himself in the rape and murder of two sisters at the Old Chain of Rocks Bridge on April 4, 1991.
As background, on February 13, 1993, plaintiff was found guilty by jury of two counts of
first degree murder in the 1991 killing of sisters Julie and Robin Kerry. He was sentenced to
death.

See State v. Clemons, No. 22911-01758B (St. Louis City). On November 24, 2015,

however, the Missouri Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s state court habeas corpus petition,

-2-

vacating his convictions and sentences. See State ex rel. Clemons, 475 S.W.3d 60 (Mo. 2015).
The Missouri Supreme Court found that the state’s deliberate failure to disclose favorable
evidence to plaintiff, which could have led to the suppression of plaintiff’s confession, was
prejudicial. The Missouri Supreme Court ordered the state to retry plaintiff within sixty days or
dismiss the criminal case and “discharge” him. Id.
On November 20, 2017, plaintiff filed this § 1983 action, alleging violations of his right
to remain silent, his right to counsel, and his right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment
when the police beat him and coerced his confession to the murders. On December 18, 2017,
while this § 1983 case was pending, plaintiff pled guilty to two counts of second degree murder,
two counts of forcible rape, and one count of first degree robbery in exchange for a sentence of
life in prison on all five counts to be served consecutively. See State v. Clemons, No. 2291101758B-01 (St. Louis City); State v. Clemons, No. 1622-CR354-01 (St. Louis City).
Discussion
In its order vacating Mr. Clemons’ convictions and sentences, the Missouri Supreme
Court found that the state willfully violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to
disclose evidence of a favorable witness, Mr. Weeks, to the defense. See State ex rel. Clemons,
475 S.W.3d (Mo. 2015). The Court found that Mr. Weeks would have testified that he observed
injury to Mr. Clemons’ face after Mr. Clemons was interrogated by Detectives Joseph Brauer
and Chris Pappas. Mr. Weeks would have stated that he recorded his observation of Mr.
Clemons’ injury on the pretrial release form he submitted to the court commissioner for review.
Mr. Weeks would have testified that his notation of the injury was scratched out on the pretrial
release form produced by the state, and that Mr. Weeks did not know who scratched out the
notation, but “it had to be someone who [did] it on behalf of the State.” Mr. Weeks also testified
that one of his supervisors and the lead prosecutor in the case, defendant Nels C. Moss,

-3-

attempted to convince him to change his written report of the injury and, despite his refusal, the
report was altered to redact any reference to the injury. Id. at 88. Based on this Brady violation,
the Missouri Supreme Court vacated Mr. Clemons’ convictions and sentences for first degree
murder. Id.
Carefully reviewed and liberally construed, plaintiff’s pro se complaint seeks damages
under § 1983 for the state’s Brady violation in his criminal case. Under Heck v. Humphrey, “to
recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm
caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983
plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been . . . declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
(1994). Such a § 1983 cause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional conviction
or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. Id. at 489-90.
Plaintiff’s § 1983 cause of action arising out of his Brady violations did not accrue until
November 24, 2015, when the Missouri Supreme Court vacated his convictions and sentences
for first degree murder. Additionally, under persuasive case law, Mr. Clemons’ § 1983 case is
not barred by his subsequent plea of guilty to two counts of second degree murder, two counts of
rape, and robbery. See Poventud v. City of New York, 750 F.3d 121, 133-34 (2d Cir. 2014)
(finding a court invalidates the final judgment in a state criminal trial when it vacates a
conviction and “from that moment on, a § 1983 suit would not demonstrate the invalidity of the
vacated conviction” and would not be Heck barred). While the Eighth Circuit has not addressed
this issue, it is plausible that the state is liable under § 1983 for violating Mr. Clemons’ Brady
rights (a due process violation) even if Mr. Clemons is not an innocent man. See id. The Court
finds plaintiff claim under § 1983 arising out of the state’s Brady violation in his criminal trial
survives initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court will therefore issue process or cause

-4-

process to issue on plaintiff’s action as to defendants Joseph Brauer, Chris Pappas, Ben
Coleman, and Nels C. Moss.
As to the remaining defendants, the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s claims because he has
alleged no causal connection between the misconduct complaint of and the officials sued. See
Mahn v. Jefferson Cty., Mo., 891 F.3d 1093, 1099 (8th Cir. 2018). “In a claim under § 1983,
there must be evidence of a causal connection between the misconduct complained of and the
official sued.” Id. (citing Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 929 (8th Cir. 2002)).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue process or cause process
to issue upon the complaint, pursuant to the service agreement the Court maintains with City
Counselor’s Office, as to defendants Joseph Brauer, Chris Pappas, Ben Coleman, and Nels C.
Moss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as to defendants Steven Jacobsmeyer, Raymond
Grist, Robert Meyer, David A. Robbins, Gary Stittum, James Conway, Nessby Moore, Jr., Rita
M. Kraph, Robert Scheetz, Robert Bauman, Daniel Nichols, Mike Guzzy, Richard Trevor, John
Walsh, Joseph Nickerson, George Bender, Jack Huelsmann, and Harry B. Hegger, Vincent C.
Schoemehl, the Board of Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police Department of the St. Louis
City, and the Supervisory Board of the Metropolitan Police Department of St. Louis City the
complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 12th day of July, 2018

___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-