The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CLINT PHILLIPS, III, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. )
) No. 4:25-cv-00221-SEP
UNKNOWN LAWTON, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of the file. On March 23, 2026, the Court
ordered Plaintiff Clint Phillips, III, to pay the full $405 filing fee. Doc. [11]. He failed to do so,
and as a result, this action is dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s
Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff has filed more than 70 cases in this Court since 2010. He brings the instant civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Police Officer Unknown Lawton, the City of
Bellefontaine Neighbors, and St. Louis County. This is the fourth time he has filed suit based on
these allegations. See Phillips v. Bittick, No. 4:24-cv-00048 RWS (E.D. Mo. 2024) (dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s “three strikes” provision); Phillips v. Lawton, No. 4:24-cv-
00120 RLW (E.D. Mo. 2024) (dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b));
Phillips v Bittick, No. 4:24-cv-00185 RLW (E.D. Mo. 2024) (dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b)).
At the outset of this litigation, Plaintiff filed a Civil Complaint and a Motion for Leave to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis, seeking to proceed without payment of the filing fee. Docs. [1], [3].
The motion failed to provide information the Court needed to assess whether it should be
granted. Doc. [3]. In response to the question asking if he was employed, Plaintiff wrote a
phone number and “please notify” along with the words “with representative payee.” Id. at 1.
Plaintiff specified that he has a representative payee who pays all his bills, and he claimed to
receive approximately $5,219 in monthly income. Id.
On July 2, 2025, pursuant to Eastern District of Missouri Local Rules 2.05(A) and (C)
and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice and ordered him
to either pay the full filing fee of $405 or file a new motion within 21 days. See Doc. [6].
Plaintiff was told that if he chose to file a new Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis,
he had to indicate in his motion what funds he has access to each month and whether he needs
permission from someone else to access such funds. Id.
On July 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on a Court-provided form, with
a separate addendum leveling additional allegations against Officer Lawton. Docs. [7], [8]. The
same day, he filed a new Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on a Court-provided
form. Doc. [9]. He again claimed to have a representative payee who provided him with an
allowance of $415 per week for “food, clothing, miscellaneous.” See id. at 2. Plaintiff’s
monthly income was listed as $5,219. Id. at 1. And he noted that he owned a single family four-
bedroom home valued at $164,000, with all monthly expenses paid by his representative payee.
Id. at 2. Although Plaintiff listed two dependents, he stated that the expenses for his dependents
were paid from either his Social Security income or his Veterans’ Benefits income. Id. Plaintiff
listed outstanding debts totaling $11,200, and he noted a negative balance in his checking and/or
savings accounts in an amount of $399.00. Id.
On March 23, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
based on the financial information provided. Doc. [9]. The Court found that Plaintiff’s gross
income totaled $5,219 per month, or $62,628 per year, with all monthly expenses paid by his
representative payee. Doc. [9] at 1. Additionally, Plaintiff’s dependents were provided for by
his disability payments, and he owned his own home. While his representative payee controlled
the bulk of his income, he received a cash stipend each month for additional expenses.
Based on the gross income and expense information provided in the motion, the Court
found that Plaintiff was able to pay for the litigation costs associated with this matter and still
pay for the necessities of life. Plaintiff was ordered to pay the $405 filing fee by Friday, April
17, 2026, and was warned that failure to comply with the Court Order would result in a dismissal
of this action. That deadline has now passed without compliance.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f the plaintiff
fails to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or a court order, a
defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Plaintiff has failed to comply
with this Court’s March 23, 2026, Memorandum and Order. The action will therefore be
dismissed without prejudice See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,
630-31 (1962); Dudley v. Miles, 597 F. App’x 392 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam); Brown v. Frey,
806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A separate Order of Dismissal will accompany this
Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good
faith.
Dated this 27" day of April, 2026.
ig
ep Nts
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE