Gwendolyn Oneva Cook v. St. Louis Public Board of Education

E.D. Missouri

Gwendolyn Oneva Cook v. St. Louis Public Board of Education

DecidedOctober 28, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-01594

StatusUnknown

This text of Gwendolyn Oneva Cook v. St. Louis Public Board of Education (Gwendolyn Oneva Cook v. St. Louis Public Board of Education) 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

Gwendolyn Oneva Cook v. St. Louis Public Board of Education, (E.D. Mo. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

GWENDOLYN ONEVA COOK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:25-CV-1594-ZMB ) ST. LOUIS PUBLIC BOARD OF ) EDUCATION, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Gwendolyn Oneva Cook’s Employment Discrimination Complaint, Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, and Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Docs. 1-3. Upon review, the Court finds the application incomplete and denies it without prejudice. The Court also denies without prejudice Cook’s request for counsel. Should Cook seek to continue this action, no later than November 12, 2025, she must file: (1) a complete application or the $405 filing fee, and (2) a copy of the charge of discrimination she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). I. Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs With the commencement of this action, Cook filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Doc. 2. The Court has reviewed the application and finds it incomplete. Cook indicates in Question 3 that she has “other sources” of income, but she describes these only as “employment” and “student,” without describing the source of money and the amount she receives. Id. For this reason, the Court denies Cook’s application without prejudice. II. Employment Discrimination Complaint Similarly, Cook’s Employment Discrimination Complaint is incomplete. See Doc. 1. Cook has not provided the Court with a copy of the charge of discrimination she filed with the EEOC. The Court orders Cook to supplement her complaint by submitting a copy of her charge of

discrimination so that the Court may determine whether the claims in the complaint are like or reasonably related to the claims outlined in her charge. See Duncan v. Delta Consol. Indus., Inc., 371 F.3d 1020, 1025 (8th Cir. 2004). III. Motion to Appoint Counsel Cook also has filed a motion to appoint counsel, which the Court denies without prejudice. In civil cases, a pro se litigant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). Rather, a district court may appoint counsel in a civil case if the court is “convinced that an indigent plaintiff has stated a non-frivolous claim . . . and where the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018) (quotation

omitted). In making this assessment, courts consider several factors, including the complexity of the case, the ability of the pro se litigant to investigate and present the claims, and the existence of conflicting testimony. Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006). After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted. Cook has demonstrated, at this point, that she can adequately present her claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case appear to be complex. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court DENIES Cook’s [2] Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. The Court orders Cook to either pay the full filing fee of $405 or file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. Further, the Court orders Cook to supplement her complaint by submitting a copy of her charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC. Finally, the Court denies without prejudice Cook’s [3] motion to appoint counsel. Cook’s failure to comply with this Order in full by November 12, 2025, will result in a dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to her. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Cook another form application to proceed in district court without prepayment of fees and costs. So ordered this 28th day of October 2025.

ZACHARY M. BLUESTONE 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

GWENDOLYN ONEVA COOK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:25-CV-1594-ZMB ) ST. LOUIS PUBLIC BOARD OF ) EDUCATION, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Gwendolyn Oneva Cook’s Employment Discrimination Complaint, Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, and Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Docs. 1-3. Upon review, the Court finds the application incomplete and denies it without prejudice. The Court also denies without prejudice Cook’s request for counsel. Should Cook seek to continue this action, no later than November 12, 2025, she must file: (1) a complete application or the $405 filing fee, and (2) a copy of the charge of discrimination she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). I. Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs With the commencement of this action, Cook filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Doc. 2. The Court has reviewed the application and finds it incomplete. Cook indicates in Question 3 that she has “other sources” of income, but she describes these only as “employment” and “student,” without describing the source of money and the amount she receives. Id. For this reason, the Court denies Cook’s application without prejudice. II. Employment Discrimination Complaint Similarly, Cook’s Employment Discrimination Complaint is incomplete. See Doc. 1. Cook has not provided the Court with a copy of the charge of discrimination she filed with the EEOC. The Court orders Cook to supplement her complaint by submitting a copy of her charge of

discrimination so that the Court may determine whether the claims in the complaint are like or reasonably related to the claims outlined in her charge. See Duncan v. Delta Consol. Indus., Inc., 371 F.3d 1020, 1025 (8th Cir. 2004). III. Motion to Appoint Counsel Cook also has filed a motion to appoint counsel, which the Court denies without prejudice. In civil cases, a pro se litigant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). Rather, a district court may appoint counsel in a civil case if the court is “convinced that an indigent plaintiff has stated a non-frivolous claim . . . and where the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018) (quotation

omitted). In making this assessment, courts consider several factors, including the complexity of the case, the ability of the pro se litigant to investigate and present the claims, and the existence of conflicting testimony. Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006). After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted. Cook has demonstrated, at this point, that she can adequately present her claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case appear to be complex. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court DENIES Cook’s [2] Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. The Court orders Cook to either pay the full filing fee of $405 or file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. Further, the Court orders Cook to supplement her complaint by submitting a copy of her charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC. Finally, the Court denies without prejudice Cook’s [3] motion to appoint counsel. Cook’s failure to comply with this Order in full by November 12, 2025, will result in a dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to her. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Cook another form application to proceed in district court without prepayment of fees and costs. So ordered this 28th day of October 2025.

ZACHARY M. BLUESTONE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gwendolyn Oneva Cook v. St. Louis Public Board of Education, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gwendolyn-oneva-cook-v-st-louis-public-board-of-education-moed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack