Williams v. City of St. Louis, State of Missouri

District Court, E.D. Missouri·Decided September 5, 2023·No. 4:23-cv-00917·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

ROZINA WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:23-CV-917 MTS ) CITY OF ST. LOUIS, STATE OF ) MISSOURI, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of self-represented plaintiff Rozina Williams’s amended motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. [5], and amended complaint, Doc. [6]. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff will be provided with one final opportunity to comply with this Court’s Local Rules and its July 24, 2023 Memorandum and Order. Background Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the St. Louis County Justice Center in Clayton, Missouri. She initiated this civil action by filing a document titled, “Adversary Complaint, Bill of Certiorari and Redemption, and Bill of Reversion and Affidavit to Support.” Doc [1]. Submitted with the document was a second filing titled, “Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and Affidavit of Insolventcy [sic] to Support in Truth.” Doc [2]. On July 24, 2023, the Court issued an order informing plaintiff that the complaint and motion for in forma pauperis status were defective because they had not been drafted on Court forms. Doc [3] (citing E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.06(A) (“All actions brought by self-represented plaintiffs or petitioners should be filed on Court-provided forms where applicable.”)). Plaintiff was provided with the necessary Court forms and given detailed instructions on how to properly present her claims. Id. at 2-4. The Court also instructed her to submit a certified copy of her St. Louis County Justice Center “trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent)” for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of her complaint, which is required when seeking in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h) (defining a “prisoner”

as including a person detained in any facility who is accused of violations of criminal law). A “certified copy” is one that has been certified by an authorized prison officer that is a true and correct copy. Plaintiff was instructed to submit the required filings by August 24, 2023. On August 10, 2023, plaintiff mailed to the Court two non-complying documents drafted on notebook paper. First, is a “Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauris [sic] and Affidavit to Support Insolvency.” Doc [5]. Second, is a document titled, “Rule 59(b) Torts to Land Claim.” Doc [6]. Both documents are defective because they have not been filed on the Court-provided forms. Additionally, to date, plaintiff has not submitted her St. Louis County Justice Center trust fund account statement or institutional equivalent. Discussion

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a self-represented plaintiff may request the Court to authorize the commencement of an action without requiring the plaintiff to prepay fees, costs, or security. However, the opportunity to proceed in forma pauperis is not a right, but a privilege. See Martin-Trigona v. Stewart, 691 F.2d 856, 857 (8th Cir.1982). Merely asking the Court for in forma pauperis status is insufficient. Plaintiff must answer the financial questions on the Court-provided motion form, which was mailed to her, and support the request with a certified copy of her prison account statement. The Court notes that plaintiff indicates she is bringing the motion “in her sovereign immunity capacity.” See Doc [5] at 1. Any contention by plaintiff that she is somehow excused from complying with federal rules or statutes based on her sovereign citizen status is meritless. See United States v. Hart, 701 F.2d 749, 750 (8th Cir. 1983) (assertion that federal courts “have no civil jurisdiction over a sovereign citizen” was frivolous); United States v. Simonson, 563 Fed. Appx. 514 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that appellants’ argument “that they are special, sovereign

citizens” was frivolous); and United States v. Hardin, 489 Fed. Appx. 984, 985 (8th Cir. 2012) (rejecting as meritless appellant’s challenges to the district court’s jurisdiction based on his status as a sovereign citizen). Further, plaintiff’s amended complaint does not comply with any of the Court’s instructions outlined in its July 24, 2023 Memorandum and Order. Among the numerous pleading deficiencies, it is drafted on five pages of notebook paper, the caption does not clearly name every party she is intending to sue, it does not contain a short and plain statement of the factual allegations supporting her claim, and it is wholly unclear what claims she is alleging against each defendant. Because plaintiff is proceeding without counsel, the Court will give plaintiff one final

opportunity to file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and amended complaint on the Court-provided forms and in compliance with the instructions herein. Plaintiff will be given twenty-one (21) days in which to comply. Failure to comply will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice. Instructions for Amended Complaint Plaintiff is warned that the filing of an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, and so it must include all claims plaintiff wishes to bring. See In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) (“It is well-established that an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect”). Any claims from the original complaint that are not included in the amended complaint will be deemed abandoned and will not be considered. Id. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint on a Court-provided form, and the amended complaint must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff should fill out the complaint form in its

entirety. All claims in the action must be included in one, centralized complaint form. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(1), 8(a). Plaintiff should type or neatly print her amended complaint on the Court’s form. If the amended complaint is handwritten, the writing must be legible. In the “Caption” section of the Court-provided form, plaintiff should clearly name every party she is intending to sue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the parties”). If there is not enough room in the caption, plaintiff may add additional sheets of paper. However, all the defendants must be clearly listed. Plaintiff is advised to place the assigned case number of this action, Case No. 4:23-CV-917- MTS, in the “Caption” section on the first page of the Court-provided form. In the “Statement of Claim” section, plaintiff should provide a short and plain statement of

the factual allegations supporting her claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Williams v. City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, (E.D. Mo. 2023).

Williams v. City of St. Louis, State of Missouri (Williams v. City of St. Louis, State of Missouri) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related