Brent Scobey v. Mark Dobbs, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri
DecidedFebruary 26, 2026
Docket1:25-cv-00163
StatusUnknown

This text of Brent Scobey v. Mark Dobbs, et al. (Brent Scobey v. Mark Dobbs, et al.) 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
Brent Scobey v. Mark Dobbs, et al., (E.D. Mo. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

BRENT SCOBEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 1:25-cv-00163-MTS ) MARK DOBBS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A review of this matter, after transfer to the undersigned, shows that Plaintiff’s Complaint and Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order are not physically signed as required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Pack v. City of St. Charles, 4:25-cv-0911- MTS, 2025 WL 2549230, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 4, 2025) (explaining that a typed name does not constitute a signature when a filing is not made through a person’s electronic- filing account). In accordance with Rule 11(a), the Court will require Plaintiff to “promptly” correct this deficiency by submitting to the Clerk of Court a signed copy of his Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. See McGehee v. Synchrony Bank, 4:25-cv-0933-MTS, 2025 WL 1993555, at *1 (E.D. Mo. July 17, 2025). If Plaintiff fails to do so by Monday, March 09, 2026, the Court “must strike” the filings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). A review of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, which is properly signed, shows that it must be denied. The affidavit Plaintiff provides does not “include[] a statement of all [his] assets.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). See also Rosa v. Doe, 86 F.4th 1001, 1005 (2d Cir. 2023) (explaining that § 1915 “allows litigants to bring a suit ‘without prepayment of fees or security therefor’ so long as the litigant submits an

affidavit ‘that includes a statement of all assets’ that the litigant possesses”). Rather, Plaintiff writes only that he has “no significant property or savings.” Doc. [3] at 2. The Court will deny the Motion without prejudice. No later than Thursday, March 19, 2026, Plaintiff must prepay the filing fee in full or carefully complete the Court’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs* in its entirety and file it with the Court. The Court reminds Plaintiff that the statements he makes on the Application

are made under penalty of perjury and must be truthful. Besides the possibility of criminal liability, false statements will result in the denial of the Motion, dismissal of the action, or other appropriate sanction. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than Monday, March 09, 2026,

Plaintiff must provide physically signed copies of his Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order to the Clerk of Court. Failure to timely do so will result in the striking of the filings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is DENIED without prejudice. No later than Thursday, March 19,

2026, Plaintiff shall prepay the filing fee in full or shall file a properly completed Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Failure to

* The form application is available from the Clerk of Court or from the Court’s website. See https://www.moed.uscourts.gov/sites/moed/files/documents/forms/moed-0046.pdf. timely pay the filing fee or file a proper Application will result in the dismissal of this action without further notice. Dated this 26th day of February 2026. Th MA THEW T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-

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

Related

Rosa v. Doe
86 F.4th 1001 (Second Circuit, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brent Scobey v. Mark Dobbs, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brent-scobey-v-mark-dobbs-et-al-moed-2026.