Cox v. Dees et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL E. COX, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 1:22-cv-00105-SNLJ
)
FLINT DEES, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Michael Cox’s Motion to Reopen this
action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). [Doc. 21]. For the reasons set
forth below, the motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 8, 2022, plaintiff filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
three officers of the Sikeston Police Department. [Doc. 1]. He alleged that he was
subjected to a false arrest and imprisonment. [Id.]. He was arrested on charges of first-
degree assault, armed criminal action, unlawful use of a weapon, and unlawful possession
of a firearm. [Doc. 4]. The charges were dismissed on July 29, 2022. [Id.].
Plaintiff was confined in the Stoddard County jail when he filed the complaint.
[Docs. 1, 3]. Because he applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, this action was
subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Under § 1915(g), a prisoner is barred from proceeding in
forma pauperis if he has filed three or more civil lawsuits in federal court, while
incarcerated or detained, that have been dismissed on the grounds that the complaint “is
Case: 1:22-cv-00105-SNLJ Doc. #: 22 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim … unless the prisoner is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury” (commonly known as the “three strikes” provision).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Prior to filing this lawsuit, plaintiff had filed more than three civil lawsuits while
incarcerated or detained, that were dismissed because the complaints were frivolous,
malicious, or failed to state a claim. [Doc. 4]. Because the allegations in the complaint
did not establish that plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious physical injury, the
Court denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis. [Id.]. The case was
“dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a fully-paid complaint.” [Id.].
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that he should be allowed to proceed with this action because of
his alleged unlawful detention for thirteen months. [Doc. 21]. He does not identify any
grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). Instead, he claims there was a miscarriage of justice
and a violation of due process—claims he already raised in his complaint. He offers no
facts or arguments relevant to the dismissal of this case under the three strikes provision
of § 1915(g). Because plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, he must pay
the full filing fee along with a motion to set aside the dismissal. Since he has not paid the
filing fee, the motion to reopen must be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen [Doc. 21] is
DENIED.
Case: 1:22-cv-00105-SNLJ Doc. #: 22 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in
good faith.
SO ORDERED this 5th day of December, 2025.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 1:22-cv-00105-SNLJ Doc. #: 22 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>