Lawrence v. Reed et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
ANNDELL R. LAWRENCE, JR., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 1:24-cv-0204-MTS
)
LARESHA REED, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of the file upon transfer of this action to
the undersigned. 	The Court notes that it previously granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in
this action without prepayment of fees or costs. 	See Doc. [6] at 14; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). 	The Court believes that it did so in error. 	Since Plaintiff was a “prisoner” as
defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h) when he filed this action, he must pay the filing fee in its
entirety. See Counts v. Missouri, 4:24-cv-1437-MTS, 2025 WL 812276, at *3 (E.D. Mo.
Mar. 13, 2025) (requiring a former prisoner to pay the filing fee despite his release from
custody after filing his action). Plaintiff also failed to provide a copy of his inmate account
statement. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). 	Filing an account statement is a mandatory
prerequisite for a prisoner to proceed without prepayment of fees; it is not discretionary.
Koenig v. Missouri Dep’t of Corr., 4:23-cv-1524-MTS, 2024 WL 277939, at *2 (E.D. Mo.
Jan. 25, 2024). For this reason alone, the Court should have denied his Motion. Id.
The Court therefore will vacate the portion of its previous Memorandum and Order
granting Plaintiff in forma pauperis status, see Hiscox Dedicated Corp. Member, Ltd. v.
Case: 1:24-cv-00204-MTS Doc. #: 47 Filed: 01/23/26 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
Taylor, 162 F.4th 919, 927 (8th Cir. 2025) (“A district court has the inherent power to
reconsider and modify an interlocutory order any time prior to the entry of judgment.”
(internal quotation omitted)), and will require Plaintiff to pay the $405 filing fee no later
than Monday, March 09, 2026, see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). See In re Tyler, 110 F.3d 528,
529–30 (8th Cir. 1997) (explaining that a prisoner is “responsible for their filing fees the
moment [he] brings a civil action or files an appeal”). Failure to timely do so will result in
the dismissal of this action.
Moreover, a review of the file shows that Plaintiff is not prosecuting his case. See,
e.g., Doc. [45] (granting two Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss). 	Plaintiff filed
this case in November of 2024. Yet there are Defendants who still have not been served.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).* And then there are Defendants who have been served, but who
have failed to plead or otherwise defend this action. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not sought
the entry of default for these Defendants. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a); see also Lloyd v.
Hansen, 4:25-cv-0963-MTS, 2025 WL 3559131, at *1 n.2 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 11, 2025)
(noting that a plaintiff’s “prolonged failure to seek entry of default can itself be grounds to
dismiss an action” for failure to prosecute). The Court will require Plaintiff, by Thursday,
February 12, 2026, to serve the unserved Defendants and seek the entry of default against
Defendants who have been served but have failed to plead or otherwise defend this action.
If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this action as to any respective Defendant.
* Even when the Court is obligated to serve defendants, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), it is a plaintiff’s
“responsibility to provide proper addresses for service.” 	Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489
(8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); accord Fields v. Okla. State Penitentiary, 511 F.3d 1109, 1113 (10th
Cir. 2007) (joined by Gorsuch, J.).
Case: 1:24-cv-00204-MTS Doc. #: 47 Filed: 01/23/26 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 3 -
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s previous grant of in forma pauperis
status to Plaintiff is VACATED, and Plaintiff shall pay the $405 filing fee in this matter
no later than Monday, March 09, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than Thursday, February 12, 2026,
Plaintiff shall serve the unserved Defendants and seek the entry of default against
Defendants who have been served but have failed to plead or otherwise defend this action.
Failure to comply with this Memorandum and Order will result in dismissal as
applicable.
Dated this 23rd day of January 2026.
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 1:24-cv-00204-MTS Doc. #: 47 Filed: 01/23/26 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>