The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
JUSTIN ARDIS EASLEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 2:24-cv-00034-SPM
)
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of self-represented Plaintiff Justin Ardis
Easley’s amended complaint. Because the amended complaint is incomplete, the Court will order
Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint.
Background
Plaintiff initially filed a civil complaint against Defendants Matthew Wilt (Police Officer),
Jacob Nacke (Chief of Police), the Hannibal Police Department, the Board of Police
Commissioners, and the State of Missouri. The crux of his complaint was that Officer Wilt planted
evidence that led to Plaintiff’s criminal prosecution, which was eventually dropped. On initial
review, the Court dismissed the Hannibal Police Department, the Board of Police Commissioners,
the State of Missouri, and Jacob Nacke for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. See ECF No. 4. It also dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Matthew Wilt brought in his
official capacity. Because the complaint did not provide enough factual information to evaluate
Plaintiff’s individual-capacity claim against Officer Wilt, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint.
The Amended Complaint
Plaintiff brings his amended complaint alleging civil rights violations against Defendants
Matt Wilt, Officer Pfeifer, and the Hannibal Police Department arising out of an event on July 18,
2021. He states he was attacked by a stranger with a knife behind the residence at 1501 Hill Street
in Hannibal, Missouri. Officer Pfeifer responded to the scene as Plaintiff was seated in his car
nearby. Pfeifer asked Plaintiff if he would consent to a search of 1501 Hill Street, and Plaintiff
responded that he did not live there and could not consent. Officer Wilt arrived on the scene,
assessed the situation, and returned to the Hannibal Police Department to obtain a search warrant
for Plaintiff’s vehicle, his cell phone, and the residence. Plaintiff states that Wilt’s interest in the
search warrant was racially motivated because he told Plaintiff that if two black males were
involved in a violent confrontation, that the confrontation stemmed from a drug deal. ECF No. 8
at 6. Plaintiff states that the warrant issued through a false affidavit. Conducting the search, Wilt
found two meth pills inside the residence. The residents of 1501 Hill Street arrived on the scene
and confirmed that Plaintiff did not live there.
Plaintiff was not arrested on July 18, 2021, but he states that he was later subject to false
arrest. Plaintiff seeks damages for the loss of his job, defaulting on two loans, emotional injuries,
degradation, defamation, and “being turn[ed] into a criminal after being [the] victim of a brutal
attack.” Id. at 7. He seeks $15 million from each Defendant for compensatory and punitive
damages.
2
Discussion
Plaintiff’s “Statement of Claim,” describes several of the events on July 18, 2021, but ends
abruptly with the notation, “over (see page 1 cont.).” ECF No. 8 at 6. The Court did not receive
any supplemental pages, and nothing was written on the back of the page. Based on the allegations
contained in Plaintiff’s original complaint, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is missing many factual
allegations. For example, the amended complaint contains no information regarding Plaintiff’s
eventual arrest. Nor does it contain any facts regarding his charges and the prosecution of the
criminal action. His criminal action was dropped at some point, and the Court has no access to
Plaintiff’s case file on Missouri Case.net.
The Court will order Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint, stating all his factual
allegations. To assist him, the Court will send him a copy of his original complaint and his
amended complaint as filed with the Court. Plaintiff is warned that the filing of the second
amended complaint completely replaces the original and the amended complaint. This means that
claims that are not re-alleged in the second amended complaint will be deemed abandoned. See In
re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005).
After receiving the second amended complaint, the Court will review it pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff’s failure to make specific factual allegations against a defendant will result
in the dismissal of that defendant. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint on a Court-
provided form within thirty days in accordance with the instructions set forth herein, the Court will
dismiss this action without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff.
Accordingly,
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of (1) the
original complaint, (2) the amended complaint, and (3) the Court’s “Complaint for a Civil Case”
form.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order,
Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint on the Court-provided form in accordance with the
Court’s instructions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court
will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further notice to plaintiff.
— Mio AO
SHIRLEY PADMORE MENSAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 11th day of April, 2025.