The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
EDWARD D. RODGERS, II, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:23-cv-00077-SNLJ
)
KELLIS THOMPSON and DR. )
CHRISTOPHER MONTGOMERY, )
)
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Local
Rule 2.06 (FRCP 45). [Doc. 86]. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss
is DENIED.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 4, 2023, alleging violations of his civil
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. 1]. Defendants have now filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Local Rule 2.06 (FRCP 45) alleging that plaintiff has failed to notify the
defendants of any change in address; and, as a result, defendants have not been able to
propound additional discovery requests upon the plaintiff. [Doc. 86]. Plaintiff filed a
response to defendants’ motion to dismiss; but, the response does not address the
allegations in the motion to dismiss – instead arguing the facts of the underlying civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. 98].
Upon closer review of the record, plaintiff was originally housed at Farmington
Correctional Center, 1012 W. Columbia Street, Farmington, Missouri 63640. [Doc. 1].
Then, on November 15, 2024, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address to Ste.
Genevieve County Jail, 5 Basler Drive, Ste. Genevieve, Missouri 63670. [Doc. 72].
Plaintiff then filed another notice of change of address on March 10, 2025, indicating his
new address was c/o Amen Center, Edward Rodgers II, 3600 State Hwy N, Advance,
Missouri 63730. [Doc. 80]. Another notice of change of address was filed on April 29,
2025, indicating a new address of 950 Fay Street, Poplar Bluff, Missouri 63901. [Doc.
83]. Plaintiff’s newest filings with this court now indicates an address of 706 Emma
Street, Poplar Bluff, Missouri 63901 (although a formal notice of change of address was
not filed). [Doc. 98].
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Eastern District of Missouri Local Court Rule 2.06 (FRCP 45) deals with “Self-
Represented Litigant Actions.” E.D.Mo. L.R. 2.06. Section B specifically deals with
“Change of Address” and says:
“Every self-represented party shall promptly notify the Clerk and all
other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address and
telephone number. If any mail to a self-represented plaintiff or petitioner is
returned to the Court without a forwarding address and the self-represented
plaintiff or petitioner does not notify the Court of the change of address
within thirty (30) days, the Court may, without further notice, dismiss the
action without prejudice.”
E.D.Mo. L.R. 2.06(B).
III. DISCUSSION
Pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with substantive and procedural
law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984). However, a pro se litigant who
does not engage in a course of intentional delay or contumacious conduct should not be
subject to a drastic sanction of dismissal. See Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir.
1986).
Here, plaintiff has actively participated throughout the course of litigation. He has
filed numerous motions and documents with the Court; and, he has actively updated his
address pursuant to Local Rule 2.06 (FRCP 45) at least 3 times. It is defendants who
originally mailed their third supplemental request for production of documents on
February 28, 2025, to the wrong address. [Doc. 86-1]. At that time, plaintiff had already
filed with the court a notice of change of address to Ste. Genevieve County Jail. [Doc.
72]. Thereafter, defendants never filed any motions or notices with this Court advising
the Court of their difficulty in serving discovery upon plaintiff. Further, defendants never
sought to extend the discovery cutoff in an effort to avoid the prejudice they now claim in
their motion of not being able to obtain discovery responses. In fact, defendants have
now filed a motion for summary judgment. [Docs. 88, 95]. There is simply not a
sufficient basis for this Court to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Local Rule 2.06
(FRCP 45).
IV. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, plaintiff should not be subject to the drastic sanction of
dismissal.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. 86] is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall notify the Clerk and all other
parties to the proceeding of his current address and telephone number within thirty (30)
days of this Order.
Dated this 8th day of September, 2025.
/ Las Ax hits f-te. wi 4
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH,
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE