United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., Plaintiff,
BOBBY PENROD and JANE DOE, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff George E. Brown's
motion (ECF No. 19) for summary judgment filed on August 7,
2017. Defendant Bobby Penrod has filed a response in
opposition asserting, in part, that Plaintiff's statement
of uncontroverted material facts does not comply with Rule
56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Penrod has
also filed a separate motion (ECF No. 23) to strike
Plaintiff's statement of material facts for this same
deficiency. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will
deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment without
prejudice, and deny Penrod's motion to strike as moot.
filed this action pro se in state court on October
12, 2016, alleging that Defendants Penrod and Jane Doe
violated his Fourth Amendment rights and rights under the
Missouri Constitution by conducting two searches of
Plaintiff's residence. In his complaint, Plaintiff claims
that Doe worked as a confidential informant for Penrod, a
police detective with the City of Sikeston, Missouri.
Plaintiff contends that Penrod sent Doe into Plaintiff's
residence on February 28, 2015, and March 14, 2015, and
instructed her to search for drugs. Plaintiff asserts that
the search of his residence was made illegally, without a
warrant, and without probable cause.
February 8, 2017, Penrod removed the action to federal court
based on federal question jurisdiction. On August 7, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, memorandum in
support, and statement of uncontroverted facts in a single
document. Plaintiff's statement of uncontroverted facts
contains six paragraphs with no citations to any materials in
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant
A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely
disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to
particular parts of materials in the record, including
depositions, documents, electronically stored information,
affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those
made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials;
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Further, under Rule 4.01 of the
Local Rules of this Court, “[a] memorandum in support
of a motion for summary judgment shall have attached a
statement of uncontroverted material facts, set forth in a
separately numbered paragraph for each fact, indicating
whether each fact is established by the record, and, if so,
the appropriate citations.” E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(E).
instant case, Plaintiff's statement of material facts
fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
with this Court's Local Rules. These are more than
technical violations. Without citation to the record, the
Court is unable to ascertain whether Plaintiff's
allegations are supported by admissible evidence. The Court
notes that “[a] pro se litigant is bound by the
litigation rules as is a lawyer . . . .” See
Lindstedt v. City of Granby, 238 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir.
2000); see also Escobar v. Cross, No.
4:12CV00023-JJV, 2013 WL 709113, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 27,
2013) (“Pro se litigants are required to follow the
same rules of procedure, including the local court rules,
that govern other litigants.”). Local rules pertaining
to motions for summary judgment exist “to prevent a
district court from engaging in the proverbial search for a
needle in the haystack.” Nw. Bank & Tr. Co. v.
First Ill. Nat'l Bank, 354 F.3d 721, 725 (8th Cir.
because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court
will deny Plaintiff's motion without prejudice and allow
him to re-file the summary judgment motion in compliance with
federal and local rules. See, e.g., Libel v. Adventure
Lands of Am., Inc., 482 F.3d 1028, 1033 (8th Cir. 2007)
(noting that the district court gave the plaintiff ample
opportunity to correct Rule 56.1 deficiencies in her response
to the defendant's statement of undisputed facts). The
denial of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment renders
moot Penrod's motion to strike Plaintiff's statement
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff George
E. Brown's motion for summary judgment filed on August 7,
2017, is DENIED without prejudice. (ECF No.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that, should Plaintiff choose to
re-file his motion for summary judgment, he must file such
motion within thirty (30) ...