West Family Trust et al v. Millsap & Singer, LLC et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WEST FAMILY TRUST, and DAWN
WEST,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MILLSAP & SINGER, LLC et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 6:26-cv-03263-MDH
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs West Family Trust and Dawn West’s Pro Se Motion for Leave
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Request for
Preliminary Injunction. (Docs. 1 and 2). Plaintiff Dawn West has attached her Application to
Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs in support. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs wish to proceed in forma
pauperis seeking a declaratory judgment resolving rightful title in property located at 603 Tackett
Dr. Seymour, Missouri 65746 (the “Property”) in which Plaintiff Dawn West resides. Plaintiffs
also seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from recording,
selling, or otherwise affecting the Property.
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
Case 6:26-cv-03263-MDH Document 4 Filed 05/12/26 Page 1 of 4

2
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.”).
Here, Plaintiff Dawn West’s financial condition and status may well qualify her to proceed
in forma pauperis. However, before Plaintiffs may proceed, the Court must preliminarily consider
the allegations of the Complaint under the three-prong test. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Complaint alleges
six self-titled counts: Count I - Violation of Due Process (U.S. Const. Amend. XIV); Count II -
Declaratory Judgment & Quiet Title; Count III - Wrongful Foreclosure/Trespass to Title; Count
IV - Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Concealment; Count V - Ethical Violations / Civil Remedies;
and Count VI - Attorney Liability/Agency.1
Plaintiff West Family Trust is subject to dismissal from the case because it may not proceed
without representation, and as a nonlawyer, Plaintiff Dawn West is not permitted to represent the
trust. See Knoefler v. United bank of Bismarck, 20 F.3d 347, 348 (8th Cir. 1994) (“A nonlawyer,
such as these purported ‘trustee(s) pro se’ has no right to represent another entity, i.e. a trust, in a
court of the United States.” (citing C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697–98
(9th Cir. 1987))). Normally, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court would grant Plaintiff
Dawn West leave to file an amended complaint and additional time to retain an attorney for
Plaintiff West Family Trust. See Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d 1254, 1259–60 (8th Cir. 1985) (explaining
that a court should give a pro se plaintiff a statement of the complaint’s deficiencies and a chance
to amend the complaint.) However, for reasons described below the Court will decline that
opportunity here.
1 Plaintiff’s Proposed Complaint states claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 and 28
28 U.S.C. § 2201. (Doc. 1-2, page 7). However, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 is titled congressional findings and declaration of
purpose and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 is the statute stating that there is a remedy to seek a declaratory judgment. As Plaintiff
has not specified how these claims apply to the stated Defendants, the Court will take the claims Plaintiff has presented
within their attachment and other Complaint noted in Doc. 1-3.
Case 6:26-cv-03263-MDH Document 4 Filed 05/12/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Currently there is a Petition for Declaratory Judgment/Quiet Title action filed in the Circuit
Court of Webster County, Missouri. See 26WE-CC00033 - PennyMac Loan Services, LLC v.
Toney D West et al. On March 17, 2026, Defendant PennyMac Loan Services, LLC filed the state
court action against Ms. West and Toney Dean West for a declaratory judgment and to quiet title
on the Property that is the subject of this action. Id. As of the date of this Order, that case is still
ongoing in the Circuit Court of Webster County, Missouri. Id.
Under the Younger v. Harris doctrine, federal courts should abstain from exercising their
jurisdiction if (1) there is an ongoing state proceeding, (2) that implicates important state interests,
and (3) that provides an adequate opportunity to raise any relevant federal questions. Plouffe v.
Ligon, 606 F.3d 890, 894–95 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden
State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982)). In such
circumstances, principles of comity and federalism preclude federal actions seeking injunctive or
declaratory relief. Tony Alamo Christian Ministries v. Selig, 664 F.3d 1245, 1249 (8th Cir. 2012)
(citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 & n.2, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971)).
Here, there is no question that there is an ongoing state proceeding dealing with the same
issue Plaintiff wishes this Court to address, namely a declaratory judgment to quiet title to the
Property. The state of Missouri has important state interests regarding the recording and ownership
of property within the state. Lastly, Plaintiffs have an adequate opportunity to raise any relevant
federal questions and other claims in the current state case. In review of the Younger doctrine the
Court finds that to ensure principles of comity and federalism that it deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
II. 	Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Request for Preliminary Injunction
Case 6:26-cv-03263-MDH Document 4 Filed 05/12/26 Page 3 of 4

4
The Court having denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis finds
that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Request for Preliminary Injunction
is found as moot.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds Plaintiff Dawn West’s Application to Proceed Without Paying Fees or
Costs establishes that she is unable to pay filing fees and court costs associated with bringing this
Complaint. 	However, the Court finds that Plaintiff West Family Trust may not proceed in this
case pro se and must be represented by an attorney. The Court further finds that the Younger
doctrine compels this Court to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction in this case in favor of the
ongoing state court proceeding in the Circuit Court of Webster County, Missouri. For these
reasons, Plaintiffs’ Pro Se Motion for Leave to File In Forma Pauperis is DENIED and Plaintiffs’
Pro Se Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Request for Preliminary Injunction is
FOUND AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: May 12, 2026
/s/ Douglas Harpool_____________
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:26-cv-03263-MDH Document 4 Filed 05/12/26 Page 4 of 4