Supastar Ware v. Missouri Department of Corrections, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: October 17, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-01262
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION SUPASTAR WARE, ) Plaintiff, Vv. ) No. 4:25-cv-01262-SEP MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., ) Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on review of the file. On September 12, 2025, the Court found that Plaintiff had accumulated three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), denied a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered payment of the statutory filing fee within 30 days. See Doc. [8]. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, and therefore the Court dismisses this action for failure to comply with a Court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff has submitted at least 20 filings to the Court since the September 12, 2025, Order. See Docs. [9]-[28]. Some of the filings could be understood as attempts to show imminent danger of serious physical injury, providing an exception to the three-strike rule. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). But a prisoner seeking to file under § 1915(g)’s imminent danger exception “is only eligible to proceed IFP if he is in imminent danger at the time of filing.” Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998) (emphasis in original); see also Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050-51 (8th Cir. 2003) (imminent danger of serious physical injury must exist at time complaint or appeal is filed). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions, Docs. [12], [17], and [28], are DENIED as moot. An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Dated this 17" day of October, 2025. 7 LD No ant {Je Ugh= SARAH E. PITLYK~™ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE