United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4560 ___________________________ Brian King lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. The City of Crestwood, Missouri; John Newsham, in his official capacity, City of Crestwood Municipal Court Judge lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: December 13, 2017 Filed: August 13, 2018 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ SMITH, Chief Judge. Brian King sued the City of Crestwood, Missouri (“City”) after successfully defending himself in its municipal court against a charge that he violated an ordinance. Following the dismissal of the charge, Municipal Judge John Newsham (“Judge Newsham”), who presided over the matter, denied King’s motion for costs and attorney’s fees incurred in his defense. King sought redress by filing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City and Judge Newsham. He now appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his action. We affirm. I. Background In April 2013, King visited a bowling alley in Crestwood, a municipality located in St. Louis County. At closing time, several inebriated patrons became rowdy, and a fight involving two people ensued. King intervened, stopping the fight by drawing a gun. When police arrived, they brought the situation under control but made no arrests. Several months later, the City filed an amended information in the Municipal Court of Crestwood, Missouri.2 It charged King with violating Crestwood Municipal Code § 16.12, the City’s disorderly conduct ordinance, and stated, “Upon information and belief, Defendant inserted himself into the altercation and, at some point, drew his firearm. Upon information and belief, Defendant pointed his firearm at [one of the combatants].” Complaint at 7, King v. City of Crestwood, Missouri, No. 4:16-cv- 01383-AGF (E.D. Mo. Aug. 28, 2016), ECF No. 1. King filed an answer in which he pleaded not guilty and, relying on Mo. Ann. Stat. §§ 563.026, .031, and .074, asserted the affirmative defense of justification. He filed a subsequent motion bolstering that defense. 1 The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 Circuit courts are Missouri’s courts of original jurisdiction. Mo. Const. art. V, § 14. Pursuant to Missouri law, municipal courts are divisions of circuit courts and have limited jurisdiction. See id. § 27(2)(d); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 479.020. Municipal courts have original jurisdiction over ordinance violations. Mo. Ann. Stat. § 479.020.1. Notwithstanding an exception not relevant here, litigants in municipal court are entitled to a trial de novo in circuit court. Id. § 479.200. -2- After a bench trial, Judge Newsham found King not guilty of the charged violation. However, Judge Newsham did not expressly rule on King’s affirmative defense. Several months later, King filed a motion pursuant to Mo. Ann. Stat. § 563.074 seeking an award of over $27,000 for the attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses associated with his defense. Section 563.074 states: 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 563.016, a person who uses force ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals