Willie B. Thomas Jr. v. William Barlock et al.

Summary

The court denied Willie Thomas's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his amended civil rights complaint against O'Fallon police officers and related defendants. The court held that Thomas had no constitutional right to a criminal investigation or prosecution, rejected his derivative constitutional claims and Monell claim, dismissed the state intentional infliction of emotional distress claim without prejudice, and closed the case.

Holdings

1. Thomas failed to state a constitutional claim for denial of judicial access because he had no constitutional right to have police investigate his case or to compel the prosecution or nonprosecution of another, and he did not allege that defendants prevented him from pursuing a potential civil action.
2. Counts II, III, and VI failed because they were contingent on the alleged constitutional violation underlying the right-of-judicial-access claims, which was not adequately pleaded.
3. Thomas failed to state a municipal-liability claim because he did not plead a qualifying municipal policy, custom, or final policymaker decision causing a constitutional injury, and the O'Fallon Police Department lacked a separate legal existence from the City of O'Fallon.
4. Thomas failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim because the amended complaint contained no facts suggesting that any search or seizure occurred.
5. The court declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Count V after dismissing the federal claims and dismissed the state-law claim without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Thomas stated a constitutional claim for denial of judicial access, retaliation, failure to intervene, conspiracy, or related First and Fourteenth Amendment violations based on the defendants' alleged failure to investigate or prosecute the store manager.
2. Whether Thomas stated a viable claim under Monell against the municipal defendants or the O'Fallon Police Department.
3. Whether Thomas stated a Fourth Amendment claim when the amended complaint alleged no search or seizure.
4. Whether the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas's Illinois intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim after dismissing all federal claims.

Disposition

dismissed