Ware v. Missouri Dept of Corrections

E.D. Missouri

Ware v. Missouri Dept of Corrections

DecidedOctober 3, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-01457

StatusUnknown

This text of Ware v. Missouri Dept of Corrections (Ware v. Missouri Dept of Corrections) 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

Ware v. Missouri Dept of Corrections, (E.D. Mo. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

SUPASTAR WARE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-01457-MTS ) MISSOURI DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, ) et al., ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Supastar Ware’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Doc. [2]. The Court must deny the Motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Ware v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 4:25-cv- 1262-SEP, 2025 WL 2636429, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 12, 2025) (collecting Ware’s strikes). The Court will not provide Plaintiff the opportunity to pay the filing fee. Rather, the Court will simply dismiss this action. Plaintiff is aware he has struck out under § 1915(g) based on previous orders of this Court. Nevertheless, he continues not only to file actions without prepaying the filing fee, see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), but he also then makes repeated nonsensical filings in the actions that remain open—including this one. A review of the filings in this case show that this action is frivolous. So, the Court will dismiss it under its inherent authority to do so. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 307–08 (1989); Henry v. Fernandez-Rundle, 773 F. App’x 596, 597 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam); Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). In addition, the Court will not waste, on this now-closed matter, any more of the Clerk of Court’s Office’s limited resources. Therefore, the Court will order the Clerk not to docket any further pro se filings in this matter from Plaintiff except a Notice of Appeal, should one be filed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Supastar Ware’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. [2], is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall not accept any additional documents or motions filed by Plaintiff in this closed action, except for a notice of appeal or appellate documents. If Plaintiff files an additional document or motion, then the Clerk shall return them, unfiled, to Plaintiff. For the reasons explained herein, the Court will enter herewith an Order of Dismissal. Dated this 3rd day of October 2025. ) | oo ul 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

SUPASTAR WARE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-01457-MTS ) MISSOURI DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, ) et al., ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Supastar Ware’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Doc. [2]. The Court must deny the Motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Ware v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 4:25-cv- 1262-SEP, 2025 WL 2636429, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 12, 2025) (collecting Ware’s strikes). The Court will not provide Plaintiff the opportunity to pay the filing fee. Rather, the Court will simply dismiss this action. Plaintiff is aware he has struck out under § 1915(g) based on previous orders of this Court. Nevertheless, he continues not only to file actions without prepaying the filing fee, see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), but he also then makes repeated nonsensical filings in the actions that remain open—including this one. A review of the filings in this case show that this action is frivolous. So, the Court will dismiss it under its inherent authority to do so. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 307–08 (1989); Henry v. Fernandez-Rundle, 773 F. App’x 596, 597 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam); Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). In addition, the Court will not waste, on this now-closed matter, any more of the Clerk of Court’s Office’s limited resources. Therefore, the Court will order the Clerk not to docket any further pro se filings in this matter from Plaintiff except a Notice of Appeal, should one be filed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Supastar Ware’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. [2], is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall not accept any additional documents or motions filed by Plaintiff in this closed action, except for a notice of appeal or appellate documents. If Plaintiff files an additional document or motion, then the Clerk shall return them, unfiled, to Plaintiff. For the reasons explained herein, the Court will enter herewith an Order of Dismissal. Dated this 3rd day of October 2025. ) | oo ul UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ware v. Missouri Dept of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ware-v-missouri-dept-of-corrections-moed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack