Shaw v. Rivera et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
SUI-JURIS CAMRAN L. SHAW, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:25-cv-00063-HEA
)
FAITH M. RIVERA, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This closed civil rights action is before the Court on eight filings received
since January 5, 2026 from self-represented Plaintiff Sui-Juris Camran L. Shaw.
Plaintiff’s filings are difficult to comprehend, but have been titled or referenced by
him as (1) New Evidence of State Rejection and Expiration of 70-Day Clock Indiana
Trial Court Rule 4(B) (Doc. 5); (2) Emergency Supplemental Notice: Report of
Systemic Judicial Tyranny and Pre-Filing Support for December 22nd Ex Parte
Application (Doc. 6); (3) Motion for Immediate Discharge Pursuant to Criminal
Rule 4 (Doc. 7); (4) Letter Received January 28, 2026 from Plaintiff (Doc. 8); (5)
Letter Received January 29, 2026 from Plaintiff (Doc. 10); (6) Dire Emergency
Notice: Physical Obstruction of Federal Litigant and Manufactured Contempt (Doc.
11); (7) Emergency Notice of Docket Fraud & Renewed Request for Ex Parte/In
Camera Communication (Doc. 9); and (8) Petitioner’s Emergency Notice of
Case: 2:25-cv-00063-HEA Doc. #: 13 Filed: 02/04/26 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Constitutional Extermination, Judicial Harassment, and the Starvation of a Newborn
(Packet #7) (Doc. 12).
Many of Plaintiff’s filings relate to criminal charges he is facing in Indiana
state court. 	See Docs. 5-7, 12. He writes of “evidence that has been suppressed or
mishandled” by the Indiana courts and prosecutors (Doc. 7). Some filings refer to
the denial of food benefits to Plaintiff and his family or alleged mail fraud (Docs. 8,
10). 	At various times he seeks to “formally integrate the Indiana Defendants into
[his] original Section 1983 Complaint,” or “protection of the Article III Shield to
prevent an illegal seizure of my person” (Docs. 10-11).
At Document 9, without any context, Plaintiff states that he “[has] secured the
original blue-ink signatures, $18.00 money order receipts, and Smith v. Gilmore case
law in the Unit B Evidence Vault. 	I request that Federal Marshal Service take
custody of these items immediately.” (Doc. 9). 	He attaches to this document a
picture labeled “Evidence Volt [sic],” which appears to be a picture of a filing
cabinet with a paper attached to it reading “FEDERAL EVIDENCE VAULT
PRIVATE LEGAL RECORDS: PROPERTY OF FEDERAL PETITIONER.” (Doc.
9-4).
Plaintiff’s recent filings have no relevance to the instant closed case, which
concerned a child custody matter in Kirksville, Missouri. 	In its Order dismissing
Case: 2:25-cv-00063-HEA Doc. #: 13 Filed: 02/04/26 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
this action, the Court found that Plaintiff had not asserted any plausible claims of
constitutional violations. 	See Doc. 3. Plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal of this
action. To the extent any of Plaintiff’s recent filings might be construed as a motion
to reopen this case, Plaintiff has not shown that the Court erred in dismissing this
action.
The Court interprets Plaintiff’s repetitive filing of irrelevant and frivolous
letters and documents in this closed case as an attempt to abuse the judicial process
and waste the Court’s resources. 	The Court will therefore prohibit Plaintiff from
filing any future documents in this closed case, except for a notice of appeal or any
appellate documents.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any future
documents in this closed case, with the exception of a notice of appeal or appellate
documents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not file in this action any
documents from Plaintiff bearing the above case caption, with the exception of a
notice of appeal or appellate documents, and shall instead return them to Plaintiff.
Case: 2:25-cv-00063-HEA Doc. #: 13 Filed: 02/04/26 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

−4−
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are
DENIED. (Docs. 7, 9 and 10).
Dated this 4 th day of February, 2026.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:25-cv-00063-HEA Doc. #: 13 Filed: 02/04/26 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>