Graves v. Ruff et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Officer Kick, Bobby Magers, and Michael Ruff's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8 ) and Defendants Jamal Fisher, Officer Freeman, and Mark Harriss Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14 ) are GRANTED. Counts II, V, and VI are DISMISSED, with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Count VII is DISMISSED, without prejudice. Plaintiff Manson Graves shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint, if he so chooses, as indicated herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins on 01/11/2022. (KCD)

Case: 4:21-cv-00989-NCC Doc. #: 26 Filed: 01/11/22 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 117

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MANSON GRAVES,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL RUFF, MARK HARRIS,
JAMAL FISHER, OFFICER FREEMAN,
BOBBY MAGERS, and OFFICER KICK,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:21-CV-00989-NCC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Officer Kick, Bobby Magers, and Michael
Ruff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) and Defendants Jamal Fisher, Officer Freeman, Mark Harris’s
interrelated Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14). Plaintiff Manson Graves filed a response to the
Motions (Doc. 21) and Defendants Officer Kick, Bobby Magers, Michael Ruff filed a reply
(Doc. 22). Defendants Jamal Fisher, Officer Freeman, and Mark Harris have not filed a reply but
the time to do so has elapsed. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01. Therefore, the Motions are fully briefed
and ready for disposition. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (Doc. 25). For the following
reasons, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 8, 14) will be GRANTED.
I. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides
for a motion to dismiss based on the “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
To survive a motion to dismiss a complaint must show “‘that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in

Case: 4:21-cv-00989-NCC Doc. #: 26 Filed: 01/11/22 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #: 118

order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice” to defeat a motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “[O]nly a complaint that states a
plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks
for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
(citation omitted). The pleading standard of Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual
allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “When ruling on a
defendant’s motion to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained
in the complaint.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). All reasonable references from
the complaint must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. Schaaf v. Residential Funding
Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 1999).
II. Background
Plaintiff Mason Graves (“Graves”) filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violation of his right to be free from unreasonable seizure (Count I), violation of his right to due
process (Count II), violation of his right to free speech (Count III), and conspiracy to violate his
civil rights (Count IV), and pursuant to the Missouri Constitution and Missouri state law for
violation of his right to free speech (Count V), false imprisonment (Count VI), and malicious
prosecution (Count VII) against Defendants Officer Kick, Bobby Magers, Michael Ruff, Jamal
Fisher, Officer Freeman, Mark Harris, William Martin, and Officer Boone on August 8, 2021
2

Case: 4:21-cv-00989-NCC Doc. #: 26 Filed: 01/11/22 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #: 119

(Doc. 1). Graves’ claims largely arise out of an alleged altercation with Defendant Ruff on April
6, 2018, at the end of a meeting of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Bel-Ridge. Graves
alleges that Defendant Ruff, an Alderman at the time of incident, approached Graves in an
aggressive manner and had to be restrained from attacking Graves by an officer of the Bel-Ridge
Police Department. Defendant Ruff thereafter directed members of the Bel-Ridge Police
Department to investigate and ultimately arrest Graves as a result of the altercation. Relevant to
the current Motions, Graves was charged with one count of Assault in the 4th Degree. On
October 2, 2018, the St. Louis County Prosecutor’s Office refused to issue charges against
Graves. The City of Bel-Ridge dismissed the charge against Graves on August 8, 2019.
On December 3, 2021, District Judge John A. Ross dismissed Defendants William Martin
and Officer Boone from this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m) (Doc. 24). The remaining defendants Officer Kick, Bobby Magers, Michael
Ruff, Jamal Fisher, Officer Freeman, and Mark Harris (collectively, “Defendants”) move to
dismiss Counts II, V, VI, and VII of Graves’ Complaint (Docs. 8, 14). Graves agrees that
Counts II, V, and VI should be dismissed but argues that Count VII for malicious prosecution is
properly before the Court. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Counts II, V, and VI of Graves’
complaint with prejudice and proceed to address Count VII.
III. Analysis
In Count VII, Graves alleges that Defendants maliciously prosecuted him in violation of
Missouri state law. Defendants assert that Graves has failed to properly allege when the
underlying criminal proceeding was terminated and its outcome such that any claim for
malicious prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations. Under Missouri state law, a twoyear statute of limitations applies to claims for malicious prosecution. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.140.
3

Case: 4:21-cv-00989-NCC Doc. #: 26 Filed: 01/11/22 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #: 120

A claim for malicious prosecution does not arise or accrue until the underlying proceeding or
action is terminated in plaintiff’s favor. Doyle v. Crane, 200 S.W.3d 581, 586 (Mo. Ct. App.
2006). “For purposes of malicious prosecution, an underlying action is deemed terminated
when: (1) a final judgment is entered on the merits; (2) the action is dismissed by the court with
prejudice; or (3) the action is abandoned.” Id. (emphasis in original). Graves alleges that the
underlying criminal action was terminated in his favor when the City of Bel-Ridge dismissed the
charge against him on August 8, 2019, exactly two years prior to his filing of the current
Complaint on August 8, 2021 (Doc. 1 at ¶35). However, Graves does not clarify whether the
dismissal was with or without prejudice and, “[w]hen a case is dismissed without prejudice, the
dismissal constitutes a termination in favor of the defendant for the purpose of a subsequent
malicious prosecution suit by him only when the party who initiated the case manifests an intent
to abandon it.” Parker v. City of Vandalia, Missouri, No. 2:18-CV-13-JMB, 2021 WL 1080681,
at *22 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 18, 2021) (citing Doyle, 200 S.W.3d at 589). See also Ciesla v. Christian,
Case No. 1:14-CV-165-ACL, 2015 WL 778703 (E.D. Mo. 2015) (finding that plaintiff failed to
allege that the prosecution terminated in his favor through any of the methods required for a
malicious prosecution suit when plaintiff alleged that “he was innocent of all charges and the
case was dismissed by prosecutors” and that “the proceedings were terminated in his favor”).
Therefore, the Court will grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss as to Count VII of Graves’
Complaint. In the interests of justice, the Court will afford Graves leave to amend his Complaint
to clarify the nature and circumstances of the dismissal.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Officer Kick, Bobby Magers, and Michael
4

Case: 4:21-cv-00989-NCC Doc. #: 26 Filed: 01/11/22 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #: 121

Ruff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) and Defendants Jamal Fisher, Officer Freeman, and Mark
Harris’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) are GRANTED. Counts II, V, and VI are DISMISSED,
with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Count VII is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
Plaintiff Manson Graves shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this order to file an
amended complaint, if he so chooses, as indicated herein.
A separate order of dismissal shall accompany this order.
Dated this 11th day of January, 2022.

/s/ Noelle C. Collins
NOELLE C. COLLINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5