Adams v. Bonner et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. [ECF No. 3] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1.00 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings in this case are STAYED pending final disposition of the criminal charges pending against plaintiff in United States v. Adams, No. 4:17-CR-579 RLW/JMB (E.D. Mo. filed Dec. 14, 2017). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall notify the Court in writing concerning the final disposition of the criminal charges pending against him in United States v. Adams, No. 4:17-CR-579 RLW/JMB (E.D. Mo. filed Dec. 14, 2017). IT IS FURTHER ORDER ED that this case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending final disposition of the criminal charges against plaintiff, and may be reopened by plaintiff's filing of a motion to reopen the case after such final disposition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is DENIED without prejudice as moot. [ECF No. 2]. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 1/10/2018. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARLON ADAMS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
LELAND BONNER, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:18-CV-39 JMB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff, Marlon Adams, an inmate at
the St. Charles County Department of Corrections, 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 $1.00. 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 arising out of the same facts.
Background

1

Plaintiff states that he has been unable to obtain a copy of his prison account statement. As a
result, the Court will require plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. See Henderson v.
Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484 (8th Cir. 1997) (when a prisoner is unable to provide the Court with a
certified copy of his prison account statement, the Court should assess an amount “that is
reasonable, based on whatever information the court has about the prisoner=s finances.”). If
plaintiff is unable to pay the initial partial filing fee, he must submit a copy of his prison account
statement in support of his claim.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting violations of his Fourth
Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure.

He states that on November 23, 2017, he

was walking to a friend’s house when he was stopped by eight to ten police officers who had
jumped out of their police vehicles with their hands on their holsters. Plaintiff states that
defendant Officer Leland Bonner ordered plaintiff to stop, conducted a pat-down search of him,
and found a gun.
On December 14, 2017, a federal grand jury indicted plaintiff on one count of being a
felon in possession of a firearm.

See United States v. Adams, No. 4:17-CR-579 RLW/JMB

(E.D. Mo. filed Dec. 14, 2017). On January 5, 2018, plaintiff pleaded not guilty to the criminal
charge; a trial date has not been set.

Id.

Plaintiff brings this § 1983 action, alleging defendant Bonner violated his Fourth
Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches; defendant Unknown Officers Nos. 2-8
conspired with defendant Bonner to violate plaintiff’s rights; and defendant City of St. Louis has
an unconstitutional “stop and frisk” policy allowing officers to stop black men and search them
without probable cause.

Finally, plaintiff asserts a state law claim of intentional infliction of

emotional distress against the officers.

For relief, plaintiff seeks an injunction and monetary

relief in the amount of $510,010.00.
Discussion
In Wallace v. Kato, the United States Supreme Court held that “the statute of limitations
upon a § 1983 claim seeking damages for a false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment,
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.

-2-

The Court observed that

“[f]alse arrest and false imprisonment overlap; the former is a species of the latter.” Id. at 388.
The Court instructed that where “a plaintiff files a false arrest claim before he has been convicted
(or files any other claim related to rulings that will likely be made in a pending or anticipated
criminal trial), 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 “speculate 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).
Here, plaintiff does not specifically assert a claim for false arrest, but asserts § 1983
claims for illegal search and seizure, conspiracy, and a state law claim of intentional infliction of
emotional distress.

These claims relate to rulings that “will likely be made in a pending or

anticipated criminal trial.”

Id.

The principles of Wallace v. Kato dictate that further

consideration of plaintiff’s § 1983 claims should be stayed until the underlying criminal matter
against plaintiff has been resolved through criminal proceedings.

See, e.g., Vonneedo v.

Dennis, No. 1:17-CV-183 NAB, 2017 WL 5904005, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 30, 2017) (staying §
1983 case alleging unconstitutional search and seizure under principles articulated in Wallace v.
Kato); Anderson v. Robinson, No. 4:12-CV-967 CAS, 2013 WL 4502598, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Aug.
22, 2013) (same).
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

-3-

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); see also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (applying
rule in § 1983 suit seeking declaratory relief).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. [ECF No. 3]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1.00
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.2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings in this case are STAYED pending
final disposition of the criminal charges pending against plaintiff in United States v. Adams, No.
4:17-CR-579 RLW/JMB (E.D. Mo. filed Dec. 14, 2017).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall notify the Court in writing concerning
the final disposition of the criminal charges pending against him in United States v. Adams, No.
4:17-CR-579 RLW/JMB (E.D. Mo. filed Dec. 14, 2017).

2

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).

-4-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED
pending final disposition of the criminal charges against plaintiff, and may be reopened by
plaintiff’s filing of a motion to reopen the case after such final disposition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED
without prejudice as moot.

[ECF No. 2]

Dated this 10th day of January, 2018.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-