Scotty Lee White v. Paul Hopkins, et al.

E.D. Missouri

Scotty Lee White v. Paul Hopkins, et al.

DecidedJanuary 9, 2026

Docket1:23-cv-00208

StatusUnknown

This text of Scotty Lee White v. Paul Hopkins, et al. (Scotty Lee White v. Paul Hopkins, 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

Scotty Lee White v. Paul Hopkins, et al., (E.D. Mo. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

SCOTTY LEE WHITE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 1:23-cv-00208-SNLJ PAUL HOPKINS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It has come to the Court’s attention that self-represented plaintiff Scotty Lee White has sent an email communication to court staff with regard to this case for purposes other than submitting documents for filing. The email communication is improper and violates Local Rule 4.04(A), which prohibits written communication with the Court except by filing a motion or memorandum in a pending case. Furthermore, this constitutes another improper use of the MOED_SRL_Filings email by White, in violation of previous Orders that mandated White to cease the inappropriate utilization of that email. See [Docs. 121, 127]. The Court’s website provides clear instructions to self-represented litigants regarding use of the MOED_SRL_ Filings email, including the admonition that: “All emails to the Court must contain a document to be filed. The MOED_SRL_ Filings email is not intended for asking questions or corresponding with the Court.” (emphasis added). Additionally, the Court notes White’s history of sending emails to court staff that contain outrageous and baseless accusations. White shall cease such communications. The Court has the inherent authority to impose filing restrictions on litigants who abuse the judicial process and waste the Court’s resources with frivolous filings. See generally, In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1292-1295 (8th Cir. 1988) (upholding imposition of a filing restriction based on frivolous filings). “Every paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.” See Day v. Day, 510 USS. 1, 2 (1993). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Scotty Lee White SHALL NOT send any further email communications to the Court or court staff that are not related to submitting documents for filing in pending cases in this Court. SO ORDERED this 9th day of January, 2026.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.“ SENIOR 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 SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

SCOTTY LEE WHITE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 1:23-cv-00208-SNLJ PAUL HOPKINS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It has come to the Court’s attention that self-represented plaintiff Scotty Lee White has sent an email communication to court staff with regard to this case for purposes other than submitting documents for filing. The email communication is improper and violates Local Rule 4.04(A), which prohibits written communication with the Court except by filing a motion or memorandum in a pending case. Furthermore, this constitutes another improper use of the MOED_SRL_Filings email by White, in violation of previous Orders that mandated White to cease the inappropriate utilization of that email. See [Docs. 121, 127]. The Court’s website provides clear instructions to self-represented litigants regarding use of the MOED_SRL_ Filings email, including the admonition that: “All emails to the Court must contain a document to be filed. The MOED_SRL_ Filings email is not intended for asking questions or corresponding with the Court.” (emphasis added). Additionally, the Court notes White’s history of sending emails to court staff that contain outrageous and baseless accusations. White shall cease such communications. The Court has the inherent authority to impose filing restrictions on litigants who abuse the judicial process and waste the Court’s resources with frivolous filings. See generally, In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1292-1295 (8th Cir. 1988) (upholding imposition of a filing restriction based on frivolous filings). “Every paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.” See Day v. Day, 510 USS. 1, 2 (1993). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Scotty Lee White SHALL NOT send any further email communications to the Court or court staff that are not related to submitting documents for filing in pending cases in this Court. SO ORDERED this 9th day of January, 2026.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.“ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Scotty Lee White v. Paul Hopkins, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scotty-lee-white-v-paul-hopkins-et-al-moed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack