Opinion

Dwayne Jemon Harris Estate v. City of Florissant

Court
District Court, E.D. Missouri
Filed
Jul 24, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 38.2%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

DWAYNE JEMON HARRIS ESTATE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-00968-MTS

)

CITY OF FLORISSANT, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on review of the file and on Plaintiff’s Motion to

Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff in this matter names itself as the “Dwayne Jemon

Harris Estate.” Purporting to appear on behalf of the “Estate” is “Dwayne Jemon Harris

– Rex El,” a “living, breathing man.” But Dwayne Jemon Harris – Rex El is not an

attorney enrolled to practice before this Court, and it is well settled that “[o]nly a licensed

attorney may represent another party in federal court.” Bader v. Keefe Supply Co., 1:18-

cv-0115-RWS, 2018 WL 3391546, at *2 (E.D. Mo. July 12, 2018). See also E.D. Mo.

L.R. 12.01(A) (providing that “only attorneys enrolled pursuant to the rules of this Court

. . . may file pleadings, appear, or practice in this Court,” though not prohibiting an

“individual from appearing personally on his or her own behalf” (emphasis added)).

Thus, the Court will require that an attorney authorized to practice law in this

Court enter his or her appearance in this matter on behalf of Plaintiff no later than August

07, 2025. See Joubert v. Brown William Tobacco Corp., 2:10-cv-0887-RSM, 2010 WL

11527327, at *2 (W.D. Wash. July 14, 2010) (“Estates may not proceed pro se in federal

court.”); Arnold v. Indiana, No. 22-2750, 2023 WL 4198034, at *2 (7th Cir. June 27,

2023) (explaining that “a non-attorney representative of an estate” appearing in federal

court amounts to “representing another party in litigation without a law license’).

Further, “only a natural person may qualify for treatment in forma pauperis under

[28 U.S.C.] § 1915.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit IT Men's Advisory Council,

506 U.S. 194, 196 (1993). Thus, the Court will deny the Estate’s Motion to Proceed in

Forma Pauperis. See In re Est. of Van Putten, 553 F. App’x 328 (4th Cir. 2014) (per

curiam) (denying an estate’s request to proceed in forma pauperis since only a natural

person may do so). No later than August 07, 2025, Plaintiff must pay the full $405 filing

fee in this matter.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis, Doc. [2], is DENIED. Plaintiff must prepay the entire filing fee in this matter

no later than Thursday, August 07, 2025. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of

this action without prejudice and without further notice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an attorney authorized to practice law in this

Court must enter his or her appearance in this matter no later than Thursday, August 07,

2025. If none does so, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without

further notice.

Dated this 24th day of July 2025. |)

| oo

Uh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.