Cox v. Odom

MICHAEL E. COX,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
V. 	Case No. l:22-cv-00122-SNLJ
CALDER ODOM,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Michael Cox's Motion to Reopen this
action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b ). 	[Doc. 20]. For the reasons set
forth below, the motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 21 , 2022, plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Calder Odom, a police officer with the Sikeston Police Department. 	[Doc. 1]. He
alleged that Odom used excessive force during an unlawful arrest in May 2021. 	[Id.]. 	He
was arrested on charges of assault, resisting arrest, disturbing the peace, and trespass.
[Doc. 3]. He was tried in state court in July 2021 and found guilty of all charges. 	[Id.].
He was sentenced to one year and fifteen days injail and a $400 fine. 	[Id.].
Plaintiff was confined in the Stoddard County jail when he filed the complaint.
[Docs. 1, 3]. Because he applied for leave to proceed informa pauperis, the action was
subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Under§ 1915(g), a prisoner is barred from proceeding in
forma pauperis if he has filed three or more civil lawsuits in federal court, while
Case: 1:22-cv-00122-SNLJ Doc. #: 22 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

incarcerated or detained, that have been dismissed on the grounds that the complaint "is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim ... unless the prisoner is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury" (commonly known as the "three strikes" provision).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, plaintiff filed more than three civil lawsuits,
while incarcerated or detained, that were dismissed because the complaints were
frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. 	[Doc. 3]. Because the allegations in the
complaint did not establish that plaintiff was under an imminent danger of serious
physical injury, the Court denied his application to proceed informa pauperis. 1 [Doc. 3
at 4]. The action was "dismiss[ ed] without prejudice to plaintiff refiling a fully fee-paid
complaint." 	[Id.]. 	In the dismissal order, the Court noted that:
Because plaintiff was found guilty in his state court criminal case, he cannot bring
a case for damages for unlawful arrest in this action unless hi s conviction or
sentence is overturned. Plaintiffs excessive force claim would not necessarily be
barred by the Heck doctrine. If plaintiff wishes to pay the filing fee and bring such
a claim in a new action, he should file the action within the five-year statute of
limitations from the date of the alleged occurrence.
[Id.] (internal citations omitted). At the time of the dismissal, plaintiffs appeal of the
state court conviction was pending.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that he should be allowed to proceed in this action because his
state court convictions were overturned. 	[Doc. 20]. 	On January 31, 2023, the Missouri
1 This case was previously assigned to the Honorable Ronnie L. White. See [Doc. 3]. The case
was reassigned to the undersigned on December 1, 2025. [Doc. 2 1] .
2
Case: 1:22-cv-00122-SNLJ Doc. #: 22 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Court of Appeals reversed the convictions on the misdemeanor charges of assault,
resisting arrest, and disturbing the peace. State v. Cox, 659 S.W.3d 651 (Mo. App. S.D.
2023). The conviction on the trespass charge, an infraction, was affirmed. Id.
The fact that three of the four state convictions were overturned is not relevant to
the dismissal of this action under the three strikes provision of28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauper is and must therefore pay the full
filing fee, along with a request to set aside the dismissal. Because plaintiff has not paid
the filing fee, the motion to reopen must be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion to Reopen [Doc. 20] is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in
good faith.
SO ORDERED this r;li 	day of December, 2025.
STEPHE1'lLIMBKlJH,.m.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Case: 1:22-cv-00122-SNLJ Doc. #: 22 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>