Ware v. Department of Corrections Missouri et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SUPASTAR WARE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:25-cv-00605-JMD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 18, 2025, the Court granted Ware’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and directed Ware to file an amended complaint within thirty days. ECF 16. 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, declarations, letters, and attachments since September 18, Ware has
not filed an amended complaint. Further, Ware’s motions for leave to amend the complaint—
both filed after the Court already granted leave—are procedurally deficient. 	ECF 19, 23.
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 amended complaints with the motions. 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, 528 (8th Cir. 1984) (“Although pro se
Case: 4:25-cv-00605-JMD Doc. #: 28 Filed: 12/19/25 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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.
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 19th day of December, 2025.
__________________________________
JOSHUA M. DIVINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-00605-JMD Doc. #: 28 Filed: 12/19/25 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>