ST. LOUIS — A federal judge has dismissed without prejudice a lawsuit brought by a self-represented unnamed woman who alleged that St. Louis police and other officials violated her constitutional rights by failing to document and investigate her reports of alleged criminal victim tampering.
U.S. District Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the Eastern District of Missouri issued the opinion, memorandum and order on Aug. 19, dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The court also granted Jane Doe permission to proceed without prepaying court fees or costs, based on her financial information, and denied all pending motions as moot.
“Because Plaintiff has no constitutional right to a police report or the prosecution of the alleged criminal activity, she has not stated a plausible claim against Defendants. The Court dismisses this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” the opinion states.
Doe filed the civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Catherine L. Hanaway, Gabriel E. Gore, Sydney Beecher, Officer McMath, and unidentified officers listed as John and Jane Does 1 through 9.
According to the order, Doe alleged that she began attempting to report felony victim tampering in April 2025. She claimed that St. Louis City police refused to document the alleged crime.
The filing said police personally refused to write a report and characterized the situation as “women going back and forth,” which Doe alleged blocked her initial access to the justice system.
Doe also named the circuit attorney for the city of St. Louis and the attorney general, alleging that the officials failed to oversee their staff or ensure the law was followed, allowing their offices to continue ignoring felony crimes.
She sought punitive and compensatory damages, citing severe emotional distress, loss of personal security and loss of faith in the justice system.
Doe also asked the court to stay and pause a 7% St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department salary increase, order a formal review of the budget allocation for that increase to determine its legality, and issue declaratory judgment.
In dismissing the case, Autrey wrote that Doe did not have a constitutional right to a police investigation or to a police report.
The judge also said that a person generally lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another person.
The court said Doe had not stated a plausible claim against the defendants because she had no constitutional right to a police report or to prosecution of the alleged criminal activity.
The ruling noted that while courts must give self-represented complaints liberal construction during review, such complaints must still allege facts that, if true, state a claim as a matter of law.
The dismissal was entered without prejudice, meaning the court did not dismiss the action on the merits in a way that would necessarily bar Doe from bringing a future claim.
An order of dismissal was set to accompany the opinion, memorandum and order.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division case number: 4:26-cv-00246
