Travis v. Joplin Metro Credit Union, et al.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
FREDRIC DARNELL TRAVIS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 3:25-cv-05103-MDH
)
JOPLIN METRO CREDIT UNION et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion to File Amended Petition Under Seal. (Doc.
8). The Defendants filed Suggestions in Opposition (Doc. 11). Plaintiff has failed to file a reply
and the time to do so has elapsed. The motion is now ripe for adjudication on the merits. For the
reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion to File Amended Petition Under Seal is DENIED.
On December 8, 2025, Plaintiff field his Pro Se Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis along with his Proposed Complaint. (Doc. 1). On December 11, 2025, this Court granted
Plaintiff’s motion in part, allowing him to proceed solely on his Fair Credit Reporting Act claim.
(Doc. 2). Plaintiff now seeks leave to file an amended complaint under seal. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff’s
motion states in its entirety:
Complainant is coming forth in his private capacity to seal this matter due to Breach
of Trust and to protect the interests of the beneficiary and subrogee and not to
commingle his private American rights with the privileges of “enemies” of the
State. Complainant also wants to secure his Article III civilian due process rights
and not to alarm the public. This matter has Special, Private, Priority, Proprietary,
and Urgent documents involving a Private Trust.
Id. Plaintiff also attached multiple documents titled “Notice to Paige Wymore-Wynn, Clerk of the
Court”, “BIE Cover Letter”, “Notes for Review”, a second “Notice to Paige Wymore-Wynn; Chief
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 25 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Clerk of the Court”, “Amended Petition to Seal”, a Proposed Order; “Statements of Discovery”,
“Exhibits”, and what Plaintiff has titled a “Bill of Equity” which he seeks to file as a First Amended
Complaint. (Doc. 8-1).
The Defendants argue that Plaintiff has filed his Complaint in the hopes of stopping a
pending case in the Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri titled Joplin Metro Credit Union v.
Fredric Travis, Case No. 25AP-AC01133 (the “State Case”) that was filed on October 7, 2025.
The State Case was initiated by Defendant Joplin Metro Credit Union prior to this case and alleges
one count of replevin seeking to repossess a 2015 Subaru that was purchased by funds loaned to
Plaintiff by Defendant Joplin Metro Credit Union; and one count breach of contract for the sum of
$6,266.53, the remaining sum of the loan, plus interest from March 26, 2025. (Doc. 11-1, pages 1-
3). The Defendants further argue that Plaintiff’s sealed motion and accompanying documents make
clear that Plaintiff is seeking this Court to issue an injunction preventing Defendants from further
activities aimed at repossession of the Subaru and recovery of the outstanding balance on the auto
loan in the State Case. The Defendants argue this is nothing but a bad faith and misguided attempt
to stay the State Case and or otherwise badger Defendant Joplin Metro Credit Union, and its
Officers, into dropping the State Case. Further, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Motion is
additionally non-sensical, frivolous, imposes an undue prejudice on Defendants in formulating a
response to the numerous filings, and that none of the documents contained in the attachment are
an amended complaint in violation of Local rule 15.1(a)(2).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amended and supplemental pleadings. It states
in relevant part:
(a) Amendments Before Trial.
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 25 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 4

3
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a
matter of course no later than:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days
after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service3 of a motion
under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), Whicher is earlier.
(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only
with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should
freely give leave when justice so requires.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(1)-(2). Leave “should normally be granted absent good reason for denial.
The classic ‘good reasons’ for rejecting an amendment are: ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice
to the non-moving party, or futility of amendment.’” Popp Telcom v. Am. Sharecom, Inc., 210 F.3d
928, 943 (8th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). The party opposing amendment bears the
burden of proving that some reason exists to deny leave to amend. Roberson v. Hayti Police Dep't,
241 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 2001). “[W]hether to allow a party to amend her complaint is left to
the sound discretion of the district court[.]” Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th
Cir. 2008).
After complete review of Plaintiff’s motion and supporting documents, the Court finds
Plaintiff’s amended complaint would create undue prejudice against the Defendants and would be
futile. The only count in this case is Plaintiff’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claim. (Doc. 2, page 3).
Plaintiff fails to allege this claim in his self-titled “Bill of Equity”. Instead, Plaintiff focuses on
claims asserting lack of consideration regarding his alleged auto loan with Defendant Joplin Metro
Credit Union; asking for a full accounting; and an injunction enjoining the defendants from further
activities of collection against the alleged loan. These claims Plaintiff presents are futile and would
create undue prejudice to the Defendants as the Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri, has
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 25 Filed 04/21/26 Page 3 of 4

4
already ruled against Plaintiff regarding his claims on the underlying auto loan. (Doc. 17-4); See
also Joplin Metro Credit Union v. Fredric Travis, Case No. 25AP-AC01133.1 Additionally,
federal courts share concerns for finality and consistency and have generally declined to expand
opportunities for collateral attack on a state’s judgment of finality. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 484–85, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2371, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994). Thus, an injunction against
Defendants in this case would be a collateral attack on the state court’s judgment as well as undue
prejudice against Defendants attempting to enforce their rights as determined by a state court
judge. Further, to the extent Plaintiff seeks a full accounting of the loan, it can be requested in
discovery during the course of this proceeding. For these reasons the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
Pro Se Motion to File Amended Petition Under Seal fails based on undue prejudice to the non-
moving party and futility of amendment and will be DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion to File Amended Petition Under Seal is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: April 21, 2026
/s/ Douglas Harpool______________
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 In the state action, wherein Joplin Metro Credit Union was the Plaintiff and Fredric Darnell Travis was the Defendant,
the state court ruled that “[t]he Court finds in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on Count I of Plaintiff’s Petition
seeking replevin of the 2015 Subaru Legacy … and further orders that Plaintiff is entitled to possession of said vehicle,
plus court costs. The Court finds in favor of Plaintiff and against [D]efendant on Count II of Plaintiff’s Petition for
breach of contract, and awards damages in the amount of $6,609.89 plus court costs and post-judgment interest at the
statutory rate. The Court finds in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on Defendant’s Petition for Redress of
Grievance and all claims set forth therein. The Court finds in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on Defendant’s
Motion for Abatement and all claims set forth therein.”
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 25 Filed 04/21/26 Page 4 of 4