Joseph Alexander v. Dawn Hill-Kearse, et al.

E.D. Missouri

Joseph Alexander v. Dawn Hill-Kearse, et al.

DecidedMarch 3, 2026

Docket4:26-cv-00096

StatusUnknown

This text of Joseph Alexander v. Dawn Hill-Kearse, et al. (Joseph Alexander v. Dawn Hill-Kearse, 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

Joseph Alexander v. Dawn Hill-Kearse, et al., (E.D. Mo. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

JOSEPH ALEXANDER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:26-cv-0096-MTS ) DAWN HILL-KEARSE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION A review of the single-page Complaint filed in this action shows that Plaintiff has not established—or even seriously attempted to establish—this Court’s subject- matter jurisdiction. For that reason, the Court, sua sponte, will dismiss this action without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Carver v. Atwood, 18 F.4th 494, 497 (5th Cir. 2021) (“sua sponte dismissal is mandatory when a court discovers that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction”). The Court will not provide an opportunity for Plaintiff to amend the Complaint for two reasons. First, this case is malicious in that it is identical to cases filed by this Plaintiff in United States District Courts across the Country.* Second, mail sent to the address Plaintiff provided this Court (and the other courts) comes back as undeliverable.

* See, e.g., Alexander v. Hill-Kearse, 3:26-cv-0057-WMC (W.D. Wis.); Alexander v. Hill- Kearse, 4:26-cv-0115-LPR (E.D. Ark.); Alexander v. Hill-Kearse, 5:26-cv-0035-CAR (M.D. Ga.). See also Alexander v. Hill-Kearse, 5:26-cv-0113-SLP, ECF No. 4 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 29, 2026) (sua sponte dismissing action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction). An appropriate Order of Dismissal will be entered herewith. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). Dated this 3rd day of March 2026. Th adrtneW T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

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

JOSEPH ALEXANDER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:26-cv-0096-MTS ) DAWN HILL-KEARSE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION A review of the single-page Complaint filed in this action shows that Plaintiff has not established—or even seriously attempted to establish—this Court’s subject- matter jurisdiction. For that reason, the Court, sua sponte, will dismiss this action without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Carver v. Atwood, 18 F.4th 494, 497 (5th Cir. 2021) (“sua sponte dismissal is mandatory when a court discovers that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction”). The Court will not provide an opportunity for Plaintiff to amend the Complaint for two reasons. First, this case is malicious in that it is identical to cases filed by this Plaintiff in United States District Courts across the Country.* Second, mail sent to the address Plaintiff provided this Court (and the other courts) comes back as undeliverable.

* See, e.g., Alexander v. Hill-Kearse, 3:26-cv-0057-WMC (W.D. Wis.); Alexander v. Hill- Kearse, 4:26-cv-0115-LPR (E.D. Ark.); Alexander v. Hill-Kearse, 5:26-cv-0035-CAR (M.D. Ga.). See also Alexander v. Hill-Kearse, 5:26-cv-0113-SLP, ECF No. 4 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 29, 2026) (sua sponte dismissing action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction). An appropriate Order of Dismissal will be entered herewith. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). Dated this 3rd day of March 2026. Th adrtneW T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Joseph Alexander v. Dawn Hill-Kearse, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-alexander-v-dawn-hill-kearse-et-al-moed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack