# Holmes

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · August 10, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11415872

## Case

- **Full name:** Shayla Holmes v. Cape Meadows
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** August 10, 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/11415872

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

SHAYLA HOLMES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Case No. 1:26-cv-00089-SNLJ
)
CAPE MEADOWS, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on documents that plaintiff, a self-represented
litigant, submitted for filing in this closed case. The documents consist of emails
between plaintiff and defendant and a Notice of Delinquent Rent Warning. [Docs. 41,
42, 43]. Plaintiff has previously been notified by the Court that filing exhibits that are
not attached to the original complaint, an amended complaint, or a motion is not
authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or this Court’s local rules. See
[Doc. 29].
Further, this case was dismissed on July 10, 3026. [Docs. 35, 36]. This is the
second time that plaintiff has submitted documents for filing in this closed case that
are not authorized post-dismissal pleadings. See [Doc. 40]. All litigants, including
self-represented litigants, must comply with substantive and procedural law. Brown v.
Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff is hereby cautioned that any
future submission of documents in this closed case, other than authorized post-
dismissal pleadings, a notice of appeal, or appellate filings in accordance with
federal law, may result in the imposition of sanctions. Federal courts have the

inherent authority to impose filing restrictions on litigants who abuse the judicial
process and waste the Court’s resources with frivolous filings. See In re Tyler, 839
F.2d 1290, 1292-1295 (8th Cir. 1988) (upholding imposition of a filing restriction
based on frivolous filings). “Every paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter

how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited
resources. A part of the Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are
allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.” See Day v. Day, 510 U.S. 1,
2 (1993) (entering a filing restriction to prevent a pro se petitioner from filing

repetitious and frivolous requests).
Finally, future filings that violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or
this Court’s Local Rules, including the submission of exhibits, emails, screenshots, or
filings that do not contain plaintiff’s signature, will be rejected.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Documents 41, 42, and 43 are STRICKEN.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff SHALL NOT file any additional
documents in this closed case that are not an authorized post-dismissal pleading, a
notice of appeal, or appellate filings in accordance with federal law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
REJECT future filings that consist of exhibits, emails, screenshots, or that do not
contain plaintiff's signature.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY
RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.
SO ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2026.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11415872. Public record. Not legal advice.