Eisenbach v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

E.D. Missouri

Eisenbach v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

DecidedSeptember 29, 2023

Docket4:23-cv-00462

StatusUnknown

This text of Eisenbach v. City of St. Louis, Missouri (Eisenbach v. City of St. Louis, Missouri) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eisenbach v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, (E.D. Mo. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

BRANDON EISENBACH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:23-CV-462-HEA ) CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Charles Coyle’s Motion To Dismiss. (ECF No. 37). For the reasons explained below, the motion will be granted. In Counts I and V of his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendant City of St. Louis, and against Defendant Coyle in his official capacity. Coyle is employed by the City of St. Louis as the Director of Public Safety. In support of the instant motion, Coyle contends that official-capacity suits are another way of pleading an action against the entity of which the officer is an agent. (ECF No. 38) (citing Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991)). Citing Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 2010), Coyle notes that a suit against a government officer in his official capacity is the functional equivalent of a suit against the employing governmental entity, and therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against him are duplicative of his claims against the City of St. Louis. Coyle asks this Court to dismiss the claims against him as duplicative. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion, and the time for doing so as passed. The Court finds Coyle’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss is well taken. The Court therefore grants the motion, and orders Defendant Charles Coyle dismissed from this action. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Charles Coyle’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Charles Coyle is DISMISSED from this action, without prejudice. A separate order of partial dismissal will be entered herewith. Dated this 29" day of September, 2023.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

BRANDON EISENBACH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:23-CV-462-HEA ) CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Charles Coyle’s Motion To Dismiss. (ECF No. 37). For the reasons explained below, the motion will be granted. In Counts I and V of his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendant City of St. Louis, and against Defendant Coyle in his official capacity. Coyle is employed by the City of St. Louis as the Director of Public Safety. In support of the instant motion, Coyle contends that official-capacity suits are another way of pleading an action against the entity of which the officer is an agent. (ECF No. 38) (citing Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991)). Citing Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 2010), Coyle notes that a suit against a government officer in his official capacity is the functional equivalent of a suit against the employing governmental entity, and therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against him are duplicative of his claims against the City of St. Louis. Coyle asks this Court to dismiss the claims against him as duplicative. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion, and the time for doing so as passed. The Court finds Coyle’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss is well taken. The Court therefore grants the motion, and orders Defendant Charles Coyle dismissed from this action. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Charles Coyle’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Charles Coyle is DISMISSED from this action, without prejudice. A separate order of partial dismissal will be entered herewith. Dated this 29" day of September, 2023.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Eisenbach v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisenbach-v-city-of-st-louis-missouri-moed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack