The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JENNIFER DEANGELIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-0895-MTS
)
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
There were at least a couple of problems with Plaintiff’s case that needed to be
addressed. She did not file her Complaint on the Court’s provided form, see E.D. Mo.
L.R. 2.06(A), and she did not properly sign her filings, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Pack
v. City of St. Charles, 4:25-cv-0911-MTS, 2025 WL 2549230, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Sept.
4, 2025). The Court ordered that she address these issues by filing amended
documents no later than March 03, 2026. Doc. [17]. She now has failed to do so and
has not sought additional time. What is more, a new problem has arisen. The Court’s
Order, which the Clerk of Court sent to her at the mailing address she provided, came
back as undeliverable by the post office. Because Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s
Order,* has no properly signed pleading, and has failed to update her address, the
Court will dismiss her action without prejudice.
* It is of no moment if Plaintiff did not receive the Court’s Order. First, she alone is
responsible for updating her address with the Court. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.06(B). Second,
she also has an independent duty to monitor the Court’s docket in her case. Shaffer v.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a), the Court will enter herewith
an Order of Dismissal that will dismiss this action without prejudice.
Dated this 5th day of March 2026. Th
arene T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Lashbrook, 962 F.3d 313, 317 (7th Cir. 2020); Brown v. Zarek, 162 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir.
1998) (per curiam) (table decision); Hall v. Gonfrade, 36 F.3d 1089 (Ist Cir. 1994) (per
curiam) (table decision).
_2-