United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. Ross United States District Judge
the Court are plaintiffs post-dismissal motion for copies and
his motion, and supplement, for "rehearing." [Doc.
#7, #9 and #10]
filed his complaint in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 on November 8, 2016. Plaintiffs complaint in this
action was filed following the dismissal of a similar action
in this Court. See Smith v. State of Missouri, No.
2:15CV32 JMB (E.D.Mo. 2015). In his prior action, plaintiff
was denied a motion to reopen and/or amend his complaint on
November 2, 2015. Id.
his 2015 action, in this action, plaintiffs complaint
contains a myriad of claims against many different
defendants. Plaintiff asserts that he was subjected to false
arrest, false imprisonment, slander, unlawful conviction,
malicious prosecution, deliberate indifference to his medical
needs (relating to fainting), various due process violations,
failure to protect and numerous claims challenging his
conviction which are not cognizable in a § 1983 action.
Plaintiff also asserts that he was not lawfully given a
chance to prosecute his 2015 action in this Court when the
Eighth Circuit gave him a "strike" pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) during the course of an interlocutory
appeal in that action.
plaintiff had filed at least three previous cases that were
dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a
claim, the Court dismissed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Court construes plaintiffs motion for "rehearing, "
and his supplemental motion, as a motion for reconsideration
of the dismissal. [Doc. #9 and #10] Plaintiffs motion for
copies relates to plaintiffs failure to follow the
Court's Local Rule 2.17 relating to redaction of personal
identifiers, causing an attachment to his complaint to be
filed under seal. [Doc. #7]
A. Plaintiff's Request for Copies
Court will first address plaintiffs contentions relating to
his motion for copies. [Doc. #7] In his motion relating to
his request for copies, plaintiff first seeks clarification
as to why his three-hundred seventy-three (373) pages of
attachments to his complaint have been filed under seal. [#2]
attachments contain medical records, plaintiffs date of birth
and social security number. Local Rule 2.17 requires
redaction of personal data such as social security numbers,
birth dates and other personal identifiers. Local Rule
2.17(B) specifically requires, in addition to a redacted
filing, having a plaintiff file under seal, either an
unredacted copy of the documents or a reference sheet
containing a key to the redacted personal identifiers.
plaintiffs attachments to his complaint are so long, almost
four-hundred (400) pages, the Court will not require him to
file both a redacted copy and an unredacted copy of his
attachment. Nonetheless, it will require him, in keeping with
the Local Rule, to file the unredacted copy of the attachment
under seal in order to maintain the personal privacy of
plaintiffs personal identifiers and other medical
information. This should clarify why Docket No. 2 is required
to be filed under seal in this case.
motion for copies, plaintiff appears to seek copies of
several pages of his sealed attachment. The Court does not
provide free copies of documents, even if those documents
were filed by the parties themselves. All litigants are
expected to keep a copy of their documents prior to filing a
copy with this Court. If they fail to do so, the Clerk's
Office will make copies of documents for the litigant at the
rate of fifty cents (500) per page, prepaid.
extent plaintiff wishes to visit the Clerk's office and
view the documents himself at the front counter, he may have
permission from this Court to do so. But to the extent he is
seeking free copies ...