Stockley v. Joyce et al
| Jason Stockley |
| Jennifer Marie Joyce and Kirk Deeken |
| 4:2018cv00873 |
| June 6, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| Within US but Outside District |
| Charles A. Shaw |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
54
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Jennifer Joyce in her individual capacity's motion to dismiss is GRANTED as follows: (1) plaintiff's § 1983 substantive due process claim in Count I based on Joyce 's effective termination of the renewed police investigation is DISMISSED as Joyce is entitled to absolute immunity; (2) plaintiff's § 1983 substantive due process claim in Count I based on Joyce's statements to the media and pu blic is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (3) plaintiff's state law defamation claim in Count III is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. [Doc. 18] IT IS FURTH ER ORDERED that defendant Kirk Deeken in his individual capacity's motion to dismiss is GRANTED as follows: (1) plaintiff's § 1983 substantive due process claim in Count I is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which rel ief can be granted and, in the alternative, on the basis of qualified immunity; and (2) plaintiffs state law malicious prosecution claim in Count IV is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. [Doc. 24] IT IS FUR THER ORDERED that defendant City of St. Louis's motion to dismiss is GRANTED as follows: (1) plaintiff's § 1983 and state law official-capacity claims against defendants Joyce and Deeken are DISMISSED as duplicative of claims aga inst the City; (2) plaintiff's § 1983 and Monell claims against the City in Counts I and II are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (3) plaintiff's state law claims for defamation and malicio us prosecution in Counts III and IV are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and on the basis of sovereign immunity. [Doc. 26] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appropriate order of dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 2/14/2019. (MRC)
|
|
Filing
37
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant City of St. Louis's Motion to Disqualify David Luce, Jason Turk, and Blitz, Bardgett & Deutsch, L.C., as Counsel for Jennifer Joyce in Her Official Capacity is GRANTED. [Doc. 22] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall modify the docket sheet of this matter by entering defendant Jennifer Marie Joyce's name in the record as two separate filing parties: (1) Jennifer Marie Joyce in her individua l capacity, and (2) Jennifer Marie Joyce in her official capacity as former Circuit Attorney for the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Attorneys David H.Luce and Jason Turk of Blitz, Bardgett & Deutsch, L.C. remain counsel of record for defendant Joyce in her individual capacity, and Associate City Counselors Erin K. McGowan and Andrew D. Wheaton shall be entered as counsel of record for defendant Joyce in her official capacity. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for the Joyce defendants shall pay careful attention when filing any document in this matter to ensure that the appropriate Joyce filing party is selected.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 9/10/2018. (MRC)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US 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.
