Ware v. Doe

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: October 10, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00782
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

SUPASTAR WARE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) No. 4:25-cv-00782-SEP ) JOHN DOE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s post-dismissal Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, Doc. [23]. After review of the record, the Court denies the Motion. On August 5, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $13.75 within 30 days. Doc. [13]. The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and ordered Plaintiff to amend the Complaint on a Court-provided form within 30 days. Id. Plaintiff was informed failure to comply with the instructions in the Court’s Order would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. Id. Although Plaintiff filed a supplement to the original Complaint and several letters, Docs. [15], [16], [18], [19] and [20], Plaintiff failed to file a timely amended complaint on the Court- provided form. Plaintiff also failed to pay the initial partial filing fee of $13.75 within the time allowed. On September 12, 2025, the Court dismissed this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order. Doc. [21]. Now, concurrent with the Notice of Appeal, Doc. [24], Plaintiff asks the Court to allow the filing of an amended complaint in this closed case, see Doc. [23], but Plaintiff does not include the proposed Amended Complaint along with the Motion.1

1 Plaintiff claims that the Missouri Department of Corrections failed to provide a copy of the Court- provided form that was sent electronically on August 5, 2025. See Doc. [23]. But Plaintiff does not submit an amended pleading of any sort, handwritten or otherwise, along with the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. And Plaintiff failed to inform the Court of the issue prior to the dismissal of this action on September 12, 2025. “[I|n order to preserve the right to amend the complaint, a party must submit the proposed amendment along with its motion.” Clayton v. White Hall School Dist., 778 F.2d 457, 460 (8th Cir. 1985); see Wolgin v. Simon, 722 F.2d 389, 395 (8th Cir. 1983) (“Absent some indication as to what might be added to the complaint to make it viable, the [moving party] is not entitled to leave to amend.”). Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint 1s therefore denied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, Doc. [23], is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. Dated this 10th day of October, 2025.

SARAH E. PITLYK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE