Mills v. City of St. Louis, Missouri et al
| Desmond Arnez Mills |
| City of St. Louis, Missouri, Bryan McGlynn, Thomas Mayer, Sr., Heather Sabin, Sergeant Strohmeyer, Kenneth Lammert, Ronald Bergmann, Gregory W. Klipsch, Erich Vonnida, Kyle Mack, Devin Jackson, Steven Fischer, Tawanna Simms, Brian Percich, Phillip Harden, Lyda Krewson and Unknown Alderman |
| 4:2017cv02891 |
| December 15, 2017 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - City |
| Shirley Padmore Mensah |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to reopen this matter [Doc. # 12 ] is DENIED as his claims are barred by the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case will remain ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending final disposition of the criminal charges against plaintiff, and may be reopened by plaintiff's filing of a motion to reopen the case after such final disposition of not only his criminal action, but also all appeal and post-conviction proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 06/15/2021. (ANP)
|
|
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to reopen this matter [Doc. # 9 ] is DENIED as his claims are barred by the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case will remain ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending final disposition of the criminal charges against plaintiff, and may be reopened by plaintiffs filing of a motion to reopen the case after such final disposition of not only his criminal action, but also all appeal and post-conviction proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 8/21/19. (KJS)
|
|
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $7.87 within thirty (30) days of the date of thi s 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 proc eeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings in this case are STAYED pending final disposition of the criminal charges, as well any appeals and post-conviction remedies, in State v. Mills, No. 1722-CR01106-01 (22nd Judicial Circuit, St. Louis C ity Court). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days to notify the Court in writing concerning the final disposition of all criminal charges, any appeals and post-conviction remedies, in State v. Mills, No. 1722-CR01106-01 (22 nd Judicial Circuit, St. Louis City Court). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending final disposition of the criminal charges against plaintiff, and may be reopened by this Court after a ruling on plaintiffs motion to reopen the case after such final disposition. 2 Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 5/23/18. (CLA)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
