Yelton v. Warren

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BRETT YELTON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 4:25-cv-01071-MTS
)
ADRIENNE A. WARREN, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Self-Represented Plaintiff Brett Yelton’s
Second Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs. 	Doc.
[8]. 	Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Potosi Correctional Center. 	Having reviewed
the Second Application and inmate account statement, the Court will grant the Second
Application and assess an initial partial filing fee of sixteen dollars ($16.00). 	See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (explaining calculation of initial partial filing fee).
Plaintiff shall pay the initial partial filing fee no later than Monday, March 09,
2026.* 	Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action without further notice.
See Walker v. Galbreth, 382 F. App’x 522 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (affirming
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to pay initial partial
filing fee); In re Smith, 114 F.3d 1247, 1251 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that, under the
* Plaintiff may also seek an extension of time to pay the initial partial filing fee consistent with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). 	See also 4B Wright & Miller’s Federal Practice &
Procedure § 1165 (“Because the district court may exercise its discretion under Rule 6(b)(1)
only ‘for good cause,’ a party must demonstrate some justification for the issuance of the
extension.”).
Case: 4:25-cv-01071-MTS Doc. #: 9 Filed: 02/06/26 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
Prison Litigation Reform Act, the failure to pay the initial partial filing fee required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) may result in dismissal of a prisoner’s action (citing Ayo v. Bathey,
106 F.3d 98, 101 (5th Cir. 1997) (per curiam))); see also Hutchins v. A.G. Edwards &
Sons, Inc., 116 F.3d 1256, 1259 (8th Cir. 1997) (“A district court has the power to
dismiss a litigant’s cause of action when the litigant fails to comply with the court’s
orders.”).
After 	his 	initial 	payment, 	Plaintiff 	then 	will 	be 	required 	to 	make 	monthly
payments in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) until he pays the full $405 filing
fee. 	See Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 716 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (explaining
that prisoner-litigants must “pay filing fees in full, with the only issue being whether the
inmate pays the entire filing fee at the initiation of the proceeding or in installments over
a period of time”); Wooten v. D.C. Metro. Police Dep’t, 129 F.3d 206, 207 (D.C. Cir.
1997) (explaining that “unlike other plaintiffs,” prisoners “always must pay in full”).
One more issue needs to be addressed. 	Plaintiff again filed a Motion for
Appointment of Counsel. 	Doc. [7]; see also Doc. [2] (first Motion for Appointment of
Counsel, which the Court denied). 	Once again, Plaintiff failed to complete the form
motion in its entirety. 	Id. 	And, in any event, he has once again failed to establish that
appointed counsel is appropriate at this stage in this case. 	See Stevens v. Redwing, 146
F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (discussing the “relevant factors” a district court should
consider when “determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent civil litigant”);
see also Carter v. Broward Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t Med. Dep’t, 558 F. App’x 919, 923
Case: 4:25-cv-01071-MTS Doc. #: 9 Filed: 02/06/26 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 3 -
(11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (noting that a district court should only appoint counsel to
an indigent plaintiff “in exceptional circumstances”).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Application to Proceed in
District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. [8], is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must pay an initial partial filing fee
of sixteen dollars ($16.00) no later than Monday, March 09, 2026. 	Plaintiff shall make
his remittance payable to “Clerk, United States District Court,” and include upon it: (1)
his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) the statement
that the remittance is for an original proceeding.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Appointment of
Counsel, Doc. [7], is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 6th day of February 2026.
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01071-MTS Doc. #: 9 Filed: 02/06/26 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>