# Alexander

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · July 28, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11412168

## Case

- **Full name:** Ray L. Alexander v. Douglas A. Collins
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** July 28, 2026
- **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/11412168

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

RAY L. ALEXANDER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:26-cv-148-CMS
)
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff Ray L. Alexander, a
frequent filer in this Court, commenced this civil action on February 2, 2026, complaining of the
termination of his benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed
an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. ECF No. 2. On May 22, 2026, the
Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint using a Court form. ECF No. 3. The Court
also noted that the application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was defective as it
provided no financial information. Id. Plaintiff was therefore ordered to pay the full filing fee or
submit a new application that provided the required financial information. Id. The Court
cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the Order would result in the dismissal
of the case without further notice. Id.
On June 22, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its Order
directing him to file an amended complaint on a Court form. ECF No. 4. The motion also
provided some information about Plaintiff’s finances. The Court denied the motion and gave
Plaintiff until July 6, 2026, to comply with the Order of May 22, 2026. Plaintiff was again
warned that he must timely comply with the Order to avoid dismissal. Instead of complying with
the Order, Plaintiff filed a motion titled “REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF ACTION BY CHIEF
JUDGE” on July 8, 2026. ECF No. 6. In this motion, Plaintiff states that “it must be inquired if
this body is sitting as an Art. II administration or Art. III, court of record.” Id. Plaintiff also
complains that he was denied the ability to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees when he
believes he provided sufficient information. Id.

Plaintiff is advised that he has filed this suit in the District Court of the Eastern District of
Missouri, which has jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution. He is further advised that
he has never provided a complete application to proceed in district court without prepayment of
costs or fees. To date, Plaintiff has never provided this Court with such basic information as his
monthly income.1 Thus, this motion will be denied.
Plaintiff was given an extended deadline of July 6, 2026, to comply with the Order of
May 22, 2026. Plaintiff has instead filed a motion that does not comply with the directives in the
Order of May 22, 2026. Further, his motion does not seek additional time to do so. Plaintiff was
given meaningful notice of what was expected, cautioned that his case would be dismissed if he

failed to timely comply, and granted ample time to comply. The Court will therefore dismiss this
action, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s May 22, 2026,
Order and his failure to prosecute his case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash
R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (stating the authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for
lack of prosecution is inherent power governed “by the control necessarily vested in courts to

1 The only income Plaintiff admits receiving is annuity payments of $21,000. Whether this is
Plaintiff’s annual income, monthly income, or quarterly income is unclear because Plaintiff does
not use the Court form and fails to clearly specify the pay period. See ECF No. 4. He also
previously stated, “Claimant has no credits are available [sic] in any checking or savings
accounts.” Id. These confusing and unclear statements only reinforce the importance of using the
Court-provided form, by which such confusion may be avoided with simple answers to questions
on the form.
manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”);
Brown vy. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (stating a district court has the power to
dismiss an action for the plaintiffs failure to comply with any court order).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF ACTION
BY CHIEF JUDGE [ECF No. 6] will be DENIED.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and
Order. Dated this 28th day of July, 2026.

SV ew
CRISTIAN M. STEVENS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11412168. Public record. Not legal advice.