Page v. Beard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

SEAN PAGE, )

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:20-CV-623-DDN _

CHRIS BEARD,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the application of self-represented plaintiff Sean Page,

an inmate at Ozark Correctional Camp, for leave to commence this action without payment of the

required filing fee. Having reviewed the application and the financial information submitted in

support, the Court has determined that plaintiff lacks sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee,

and will assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Furthermore,

based upon a review of the complaint, the Court will dismiss this action pursuant to Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Legal Standard on Initial Review

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma

pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To

state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief,

which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679

(2009). “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 upon judicial experience and common sense.

Id. at 679. The court must “accept as true the facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or

threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.”

Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir. 2016). See also Brown v. Green Tree Servicing

LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73 (8 Cir. 2016) (stating that court must accept factual allegations in

complaint as true, but is not required to “accept as true any legal conclusion couched as a factual

allegation’).

When reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give it the benefit

of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A “liberal construction”

means that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, the district court should construe the

plaintiff's complaint in a way that permits his or her claim to be considered within the proper legal

framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015).

The Complaint

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Detective Beard of the

Wright City, Missouri Police Department arising out of an alleged wrongful search and seizure,

which plaintiff states was racially motivated.

Plaintiff states that on October 15, 2019 he was a passenger in a car being driven by Heather

Richardet. Detective Beard pulled over Ms. Richardet for a traffic violation. Ms. Richardet

consented to a search of her vehicle, and plaintiff states Detective Beard located two purses.

Another passenger in the car, Ashley Fisher, claimed possession of the purses and consented to

search. Inside one purse, Detective Beard found a glass pipe with drug residue, four hypodermic

needles (one containing a substance), anda metal spoon. Plaintiff states that Ms. Fisher admitted

-2-

to having the pipe and one of the needles, but she said the rest of the drug paraphernalia belonged

to plaintiff. Detective Beard arrested Ms. Fisher and plaintiff for possession of a controlled

substance.

Plaintiff states that when Detective Beard placed him under arrest, Detective Beard said he

had found a glass pipe on the seat within plaintiff's reach. Plaintiff states, however, that all the

drug paraphernalia including the glass pipe was found in Ms. Fisher’s purse and that Ms. Fisher

admitted possession of the pipe. “As you see this is a wrongful arrest and a police officer abuse

of power and I feel racism played a part being I was the only black person in the car.” Plaintiff

states that Detective Beard “clearly lied to why I was being arrested.”

For relief, plaintiff seeks damages for pain and suffering and asks the Court to “subpoena

all audio and video of the traffic stop.” __

Discussion

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 unless the conviction

or sentence is reversed, expunged or called into question by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

See Heck vy. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir.

1995); see also Edwards vy. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (applying rule in § 1983 suit seeking

declaratory relief).

On January 8, 2020, plaintiff pled guilty in Warren County Circuit Court to one count of

unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia arising out of the traffic stop on October 15,2019. See

State v. Page, No. 19AA-CR00413-01 (12th Jud. Cir. Jan. 8, 2020). He was sentenced to pay a

-3-

fine in the amount of $100. Jd. Plaintiff has not brought any appeals of his conviction or post-

conviction proceedings to overturn his conviction.!

Plaintiffs argument in this § 1983 lawsuit that he was wrongly arrested would necessarily

imply the invalidity of the crime for which he has pled guilty. As such, Heck bars plaintiffs

Fourth Amendment claims that he was wrongfully arrested by Detective Beard. In addition,

plaintiff's allegations that he was arrested because he was black are wholly conclusory and fail to

state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not

suffice’).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED. [ECF No. 2]

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.”

1 In an unrelated charge, on January 9, 2020, plaintiff pled guilty to one count of possession of a

controlled substance except 35 grams or less of marijuana and one count of unlawful possession

of drug paraphernalia arising out of an incident on January 16, 2019. See State v. Page, No.

19BB-CR00046-01 (12th Jud. Cir. Jan. 9, 2020). He was sentenced to a fine and a long-term

substance abuse program. Jd.

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 action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B) and pursuant to the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is

DENIED as moot. [ECF No. 8]

An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.

Dated this {+4 day of August, 2020.

__ LMb Joli.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, &

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-