Harris v. State of Missouri et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Sr. District Judge John A. Ross on 2/6/24. (JAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DESMOND HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:23-CV-1319-NCC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. For the following reasons, this
action will be dismissed without prejudice.
On October 10, 2023, self-represented plaintiff Desmond Harris, a pretrial detainee
currently housed at the St. Louis City Justice Center, filed a Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. In the caption, plaintiff listed the following entities as
defendants: State of Missouri, 22nd Judicial Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Department of Public
Safety, and Division of Corrections. Id. at 1. However, in the section of the complaint for plaintiff
to list all defendants, he only included “the State of Missouri 22nd Judicial Circuit Court.” See id.
at 2. Plaintiff’s complaint did not include a Statement of Claim, a description of his injuries, or the
relief he sought. Rather, plaintiff attached various documents to his complaint without any
explanation. 1 See ECF No. 1-4.

Attached to the complaint were the following documents: (1) a handwritten form titled, “Claim for Damage,
Injury, or Death,” in which he stated he was subjected to “wrongful incar[c]eration, false arrest, unlawful detainment,
fraud, public humiliation, defamation of character, [and] PTSD,” (2) a document titled, “NOTICE Petition for Redress
of Gr[ie]vance: Motion to Dismiss Pursuant Article I § 9 of the Missouri Constitution,” followed by two pages of
citations to the United States Constitution; (3) a copy of an Informal Resolution Request form related to an August
22, 2023 incident in which inmates were allegedly placed into segregation and deprived of “meals, showers and outside
contact for 9 days,” and (4) two pages of notebook paper in which plaintiff provided vague and conclusory allegations
that detainees are subject to cruel and unusual punishment.
1

On December 15, 2023, the Court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ECF No. 13. Upon such review, the Court
determined the complaint was subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim and legal frivolity.
First, the Court explained that the State of Missouri is not a “person” under § 1983, and a
department or subdivision of City government, such as the “Department of Public Safety,” is not
an entity subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Second, the complaint was devoid of any
allegations related to a policy or custom of unconstitutional action, as would be required to state a
claim against the City of St. Louis. Third, plaintiff did not comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure because a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief was absent from the complaint. Finally, the Court noted that plaintiff failed to
name any individual defendants who were personally liable for his alleged claims. The Court
provided plaintiff with detailed instructions for amending his complaint in compliance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of this Court. Plaintiff had thirty (30) days, or
until January 14, 2024, to comply. He was warned that failure to timely comply could result in the
dismissal of this action, without prejudice and without further notice.
On December 18, 2023, the Court received a seven-page document drafted on notebook
paper. ECF No. 14. The document does not include a title or caption, but the Court construes it as
a proposed settlement agreement. Within, plaintiff requests defendants to pay him $10,500,000.00
and, in return, he states he will dismiss the instant lawsuit. Id. at 1.
As of the date of this Memorandum and Order, plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s
directive to amend his complaint, nor has he sought additional time to do so. The proposed
settlement agreement is not compliant with the Court’s instructions. The Court gave plaintiff
2

meaningful notice of what was expected, cautioned him that his case would be dismissed if he
failed to timely comply, and gave him additional time to comply. Therefore, this action will be
dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s December 15,
2023 Order and his failure to prosecute his case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Brown v. Frey,
806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the
plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order); Dudley v. Miles, 597 F. App’x 392 (8th Cir.
2015) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal without prejudice where self-represented plaintiff failed
to file an amended complaint despite being cautioned that dismissal could result from failure to do
so). This dismissal will not count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 6th day of February, 2024.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3