Blakemore v. State of Missouri et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's post-dismissal request for leave to amend his complaint is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 3/2/18. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES ARTHUR BLAKEMORE, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:18-CV-0223 JMB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s notice of appeal, as well as an exhibit attached to plaintiff’s
notice of appeal, titled “Petition: Abuse of Process Administrative Discretion.” To the extent
that plaintiff is requesting leave to file an amended complaint, the Court will deny plaintiff’s
request for leave.
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Missouri
and two St. Louis City Prosecutors alleging violations of his civil rights during his incarceration
as a pretrial detainee in the St. Louis County Detention Center. The Court reviewed his
allegations and found that they failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and
dismissed his action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), on February 13, 2018.
The Court has reviewed the forty-four (44) page document attached to plaintiff’s notice
of appeal and found that it is not styled as a pleading and it does not comply with either this
Court’s Local Rules or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For example, the document
submitted by plaintiff does not contain Aa short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief, and . . . a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.@ See

Fed.R.Civ.P.8. Furthermore, the document is not simple, concise or direct, nor does it set out
plaintiff’s claims in numbered paragraphs, as required by Rule 10 of the Federal Rules.
Instead, it appears that plaintiff has submitted several pages of documents relating to his
state court criminal action, as well as legal citations to what he believes to be relevant state case
law. Because plaintiff’s document appears to be nothing more than a recitation of his original
complaint in this action, the Court will deny plaintiff’s post-dismissal request for leave to amend
his complaint.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's post-dismissal request for leave to amend
his complaint is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 2nd day March, 2018.

\s\ Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2