# Cook

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · October 28, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11180300

## Case

- **Full name:** Gwendolyn Oneva Cook v. St. Louis Public Board of Education
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** October 28, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11180300

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

GWENDOLYN ONEVA COOK, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:25-CV-1594-ZMB
)
ST. LOUIS PUBLIC BOARD OF )
EDUCATION, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Gwendolyn Oneva Cook’s Employment
Discrimination Complaint, Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs, and Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Docs. 1-3. Upon review, the Court finds the
application incomplete and denies it without prejudice. The Court also denies without prejudice
Cook’s request for counsel. Should Cook seek to continue this action, no later than November 12,
2025, she must file: (1) a complete application or the $405 filing fee, and (2) a copy of the charge
of discrimination she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
I. Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
With the commencement of this action, Cook filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. See Doc. 2. The Court has reviewed the application and finds it incomplete. Cook
indicates in Question 3 that she has “other sources” of income, but she describes these only as
“employment” and “student,” without describing the source of money and the amount she receives.
Id. For this reason, the Court denies Cook’s application without prejudice.
II. Employment Discrimination Complaint
Similarly, Cook’s Employment Discrimination Complaint is incomplete. See Doc. 1. Cook
has not provided the Court with a copy of the charge of discrimination she filed with the EEOC.
The Court orders Cook to supplement her complaint by submitting a copy of her charge of

discrimination so that the Court may determine whether the claims in the complaint are like or
reasonably related to the claims outlined in her charge. See Duncan v. Delta Consol. Indus., Inc.,
371 F.3d 1020, 1025 (8th Cir. 2004).
III. Motion to Appoint Counsel
Cook also has filed a motion to appoint counsel, which the Court denies without prejudice.
In civil cases, a pro se litigant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel.
Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). Rather, a district court may appoint counsel in
a civil case if the court is “convinced that an indigent plaintiff has stated a non-frivolous
claim . . . and where the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the court will benefit
from the assistance of counsel.” Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018) (quotation

omitted). In making this assessment, courts consider several factors, including the complexity of
the case, the ability of the pro se litigant to investigate and present the claims, and the existence of
conflicting testimony. Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006).
After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not
warranted. Cook has demonstrated, at this point, that she can adequately present her claims to the
Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case appear to be complex. The
Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Cook’s [2] Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. The Court orders Cook to either pay the full filing fee of $405
or file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. Further, the Court orders Cook to
supplement her complaint by submitting a copy of her charge of discrimination filed with the
EEOC. Finally, the Court denies without prejudice Cook’s [3] motion to appoint counsel. Cook’s
failure to comply with this Order in full by November 12, 2025, will result in a dismissal of
this action without prejudice and without further notice to her.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Cook another form application to proceed in district
court without prepayment of fees and costs.
So ordered this 28th day of October 2025.

ZACHARY M. BLUESTONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11180300. Public record. Not legal advice.