Stewart v. Harmison et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANDRE L. STEWART,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JERRY A. HARMISON, JR et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 6:26-cv-03042-MDH
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Andre L. Stewart’s Pro Se Motion for Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff has also attached his Application to Proceed Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs in support. Id. 	Plaintiff wishes to proceed in forma pauperis against
Defendants the Honorable Jerry A Harmison Jr in both his individual and official capacity as a
Circuit Judge of the 31st Judicial Circuit in Greene County, Missouri; the Missouri Office of
Administration – Risk Management Division and Greene County, Missouri. Plaintiff is currently
a defendant in the 31st Judicial Circuit in Greene County, Missouri in State of Missouri v. Andre
L. Stewart, Case No. 2231-CR04835-01 on charges of a DWI and leaving the scene of an accident
– property damage exceeding $1,000. See State of Missouri v. Andre L. Stewart, Case No. 2231-
CR04835-01. Plaintiff alleges that in the state criminal proceeding he was allowed to attend a
hearing via WebEx, did so, and was cited as failing to appear in person in which a bench warrant
was ordered; the state court failing to recognize his pro se status; the state court refusing to docket
and consider Plaintiff’s pro se motions; the state court entering docket orders without hearing or
justification; and the Missouri Office of Admission – Risk Management Division stating “no
records responsive to your request exist” regarding public official bond records. (Doc. 1-2).
Case 6:26-cv-03042-MDH Document 3 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Plaintiff seeks declaratory, prospective injunctive relief, nominal damages, and costs associated
with this lawsuit. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Pro Se Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (“TRO”) and/or Prelimianry Injunction. (Doc. 2). The Court will take each
motion in turn.
I. 	Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the decision whether to grant or deny in forma pauperis status
is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Cross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157
(8th Cir. 1983). The Court is also required to conduct a review of Plaintiff’s Complaint to be filed
in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion
thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines
that …. (B) the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.”).
Here, Plaintiff’s financial condition and status may well qualify him to proceed in forma
pauperis. However, before Plaintiff may proceed, the Court must preliminarily consider the
allegations of the Complaint under the three-prong test. Plaintiff’s Proposed Complaint alleges
four counts against Defendants: Count I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violation of Procedural Due Process;
Count II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violation of Right of Self-Representation; Count III – 42 U.S.C. §
1983 Violation of First Amendment Right to Petition and Access to Courts; and Count IV – Mo.
Rev. Stat. § 483.075 Missouri Sunshine Law.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Proposed Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted. Pursuant to U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) this Court must deny Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion
for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff states that he “does not ask this Court to
Case 6:26-cv-03042-MDH Document 3 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 4

3
intervene in or enjoin the underlying state prosecution”. (Doc. 1-2). However, Plaintiff specifically
asks this Court to intervene in his ongoing state judicial process by requesting the following relief:
Declaratory Relief – A declaration that Defendants’ ongoing refusal to recognize
Plaintiff’s pro se status, to docket and consider his filings, and to honor the court-
authorized Webex appearance deprives Plaintiff of rights secured by the First,
Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Prospective Injunctive Relief – An order requiring that:
a. The Circuit Court of Greene County recognize Plaintiff’s pro se status, or in
the alternative, conduct a proper Faretta hearing and make findings before
denying such status;
b. The Court accept, docket, and consider all motions and filings submitted by
Plaintiff in his own name; and
c. The Court adhere to its own Webex or other remote-appearance authorization
or, in the alterative, provide a meaningful opportunity to be heard by
reasonable alternative means consistent with due process.
(Doc. 1-2, page 14).
These claims are barred under the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37 (1971). Younger requires federal courts to abstain from hearing cases when there is an
ongoing state judicial proceeding that implicates important state interests and affords an adequate
opportunity to raise the federal questions presented, absent extraordinary circumstance where the
danger of irreparable injury to the federal plaintiff is both great and immediate. Norwood v. Dickey,
409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Fuller v. Ulland, 76 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 1996)).
Plaintiff alleges that:
As of the filing of this Complaint, the bench warrant remains active, exposing
Plaintiff to immediate arrest and incarceration despite his good-faith efforts to
appear, comply and resolve the matter. The continuing existence of the warrant,
coupled with the trial court’s refusal to recognize Plaintiff’s pro se status or docket
his filings, has chilled his ability to petition the court, denied access to due
process, and placed him under imminent threat of loss of liberty.
Case 6:26-cv-03042-MDH Document 3 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 4

4
(Doc. 1-2, ¶¶ 10-11). However, in review of the docket for State of Missouri v. Andre L. Stewart,
Case No. 2231-CR04835-01 the state court is docketing his filings and dismissing them. The state
court has ruled on Plaintiff’s pro se motions that the “Court is in receipt of a pro se motion. The
Court finds defendant is not pro se. Defendant is represented by counsel. As such, the Court takes
no action on the improperly filed motion.” Id. This Court also notes that while Plaintiff has
attempted to dismiss his attorney of record through a Pro Se Notice of Immediate Termination of
Counsel, it was not granted and Plaintiff continues to be represented by counsel in his underlying
state court case. Id. With Plaintiff being represented by counsel in the underlying state case, the
Court finds there are no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a deviation from Younger.
The Court further finds Plaintiff can raise his federal questions presented within his ongoing state
judicial proceeding and thus Younger abstention is warranted. For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s
Pro Se Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED.
II. 	Emergency Motion for TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction
As the Court has denied Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,
the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Pro Se Emergency Motion for TRO and/or Preliminary
Injunction is FOUND AS MOOT.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Pro Se Emergency Motion for TRO and/or Prelimianry
Injunction is FOUND AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: January 29, 2026
/s/ Douglas Harpool_____________
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:26-cv-03042-MDH Document 3 Filed 01/29/26 Page 4 of 4