Ware v. Galloway et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SUPASTAR WARE,
Plaintiff,
v.
RYAN GALLOWAY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:25-cv-00562-JMD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On July 15, 2025, the Court granted Supastar Ware’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and directed Ware to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 	The
Court specifically instructed Ware that any amended complaint must be filed on the Court-
provided Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint form and must comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. 	The Court further warned Ware that failure to comply would result in
dismissal without prejudice.
As of this date, Ware has not complied with the Court’s order. 	Although Ware has
filed multiple motions, letters, and attachments since July 15, Ware has not filed an amended
complaint. 	Ware’s motion for leave to amend the complaint—filed after the Court already
granted leave—is procedurally deficient. Under Local Rule 4.07, “[a] proposed amendment
to a pleading or amended pleading itself must be submitted at the time any motion for leave
to amend any pleading is filed.” Ware did not submit an amended complaint with the motion.
Ware’s self-represented status does not eliminate the obligation to follow court orders, the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or this Court’s Local Rules. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526,
Case: 4:25-cv-00562-JMD Doc. #: 50 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
528 (8th Cir. 1984) (“Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, pro se litigants
are not excused from failing to comply with substantive and procedural law.”).
The Court gave Ware clear instructions and ample opportunity for compliance. Ware
nevertheless failed to file an amended complaint as ordered. 	Accordingly, the Court finds
that dismissal is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply
with a court order.
Dismissal is also warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Even liberally construed,
the operative complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and is
factually frivolous. Under § 1915, the Court has the unusual authority to look beyond the
surface of the complaint and dismiss claims that rely on clearly baseless factual allegations.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Factual allegations are clearly baseless if they
are fanciful, fantastic, or delusional. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32−33 (1992). Here,
Ware names numerous defendants but does not allege facts connecting any specific defendant
to any specific act. Ware also requests $2,999,999,999,999,999 in damages and other sums
that lack factual or legal basis. 	These allegations, combined with the absence of factual
matter showing a plausible entitlement to relief, render the complaint clearly baseless under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice under Rule 41(b). 	IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are
DENIED as moot. A separate Order of Dismissal accompanies this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 5th day of January, 2026
______________________________
JOSHUA M. DIVINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-00562-JMD Doc. #: 50 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>