pro se litigant must comply with relevant rules of procedure
How later courts described this case
- pro se litigant must comply with relevant rules of procedure
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DISTRICT
ANGELA M. BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:23-CV-520 RLW
)
MATT BRIESCHER, )
Missouri Department of Corrections, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Angela M. Brown’s response to the Court’s
Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 14). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s response, and for the
reasons that follow, it will allow her to file a response in opposition to Defendant Matt
Briescher’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).
Background
Plaintiff brings this suit against Defendant Matt Briescher of the Missouri Department of
Corrections alleging, among other things, employment discrimination based on disability.
Plaintiff, who is proceeding in this matter pro se without the assistance of counsel, filed her
Complaint using the district’s form complaint. On October 19, 2023, Defendant Briescher filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 11).
Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in a timely manner, and on November
17, 2023, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff was ordered to show
cause, in writing, before December 4, 2023, why she failed to respond to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss her Complaint.
On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause.1
(ECF No. 14). Plaintiff states in her response that she is “in a cancer scare phase of her illness”
and “was not thinking very straight … .” (Id.) Plaintiff does not request that she be allowed to
respond to the Motion to Dismiss, but rather she states, “I have lots of information I would love
for you to see about this case and hoping we can continue.” (Id.) Plaintiff states that she “won’t
let the Court down again.” (Id.)
Although Plaintiff is representing herself without the assistance of counsel, she is not
excused from complying with the Court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
applicable local rules. See Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th
Cir. 1996); see also Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 934-35 n.46 (1975) (pro se litigant must
comply with relevant rules of procedure). Rule 4.01 of the Local Rules of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri provides, “each party opposing a motion . . .
must file, within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion, a single memorandum containing
any relevant argument and citations to authorities on which the party relies.” E.D. Mo. L.R.
4.01(B). When a party cannot meet a deadline, the party must file a motion for leave to file a
1Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause does not comply with Local Rule
2.01, which provides as follows:
All filings, unless otherwise permitted by leave of Court, shall be in 12 point or
larger font, double spaced, typed or legibly written on 8 ½ by 11-inch pages, and
shall contain the signature of the self-represented party …. Immediately beneath
each signature shall appear the self-represented party or party attorney’s name,
address, telephone number, email address ….
E.D.Mo. L.R. 2.01 (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s future filings must comply with this Local Rule,
or they will be stricken from the record for filing error.
2
document out of time. The Court may extend the deadline for good cause shown or because of
excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).
In this instance, the Court will allow Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss out of time. The response shall address the arguments Defendant makes in his Motion.
When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6), the Court reviews the allegations in the pleadings, that is, what has been alleged in the
Complaint. To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)). Therefore, in deciding Defendant’s motion, the Court will not consider whether
Plaintiff has evidence to prove her allegations. Plaintiff should not submit evidence or exhibits in
response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
In addition, Plaintiff shall familiarize herself with the Local Rules and Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. A copy of the Court’s Local Rules can be found on the website for the U.S.
District Court Eastern District of Missouri. See https://www.moed.uscourts.gov/local-rules.
Other resources for self-represented parties can be found on the District’s website as well,
including links to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the future, Plaintiff shall comply the
Court’s orders and the applicable rules of this Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Angela M. Brown is GRANTED leave to file
a response in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff shall file her response
memorandum, which must comply with Local Rule 2.01 and not exceed 15 pages double spaced,
on or before February 20, 2024. Defendant shall file his reply, if any, on or before March 5,
3
2024. If Plaintiff fails to comply with the terms of this Memorandum and Order and file a timely
response in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court will take up Defendant’s
Motion without a response from Plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all future filings, Plaintiff shall comply with the
Court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of the Eastern District
of Missouri.
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this _30th_ day of January, 2024.