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 Petition to Show Cause and Reconsideration. (Doc.
18). The Defendants have not responded and the time to do so has elapsed. Thus, the motion is
now ripe for adjudication on the merits. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion
Petition to Show Cause and Reconsideration is DENIED.
On January 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed his Pro Se Motion to Seal Case. (Doc. 4). The Plaintiff
sought for this Court to seal the case arguing in part that “due to urgent and exigent circumstances
and confidential trade secret, propriety, private, special and restricted information/evidence in
support of my special equitable cause, either of which if revealed in public, will cause irreparable
harm to rights, property and interest.” (Doc. 4-2). This Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion on March
16, 2026, ruling that:
Plaintiff never expands nor provides this Court any context apart from [the above]
statement why sealing of this case is warranted. As Plaintiff’s only claim is
regarding the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Court cannot glean any compelling
reason why the presumption of public access to judicial records should be
overcome.
(Doc. 15, page 2). Plaintiff brings his current motion arguing that he “has filed substantiating
reasons with his Bill in Equity and Letter to the Clerk why this case should be sealed along with
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 3

2
his Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 18). The Plaintiff then goes on to reference a separate motion he
filed on February 17, 2026 in which he asks the Court to file his First Amended Petition Under
Seal and additional documentation in that motion justifying why this case should be sealed. The
Plaintiff argues that the Court entered its Order without considering the information in that separate
motion which caused him prejudice.
The Eighth Circuit has held, “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) was adopted to clarify
a district court’s power to correct its own mistakes in the time period immediately following entry
of judgment.” Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. Of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d
1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). Motions under Rule 59(e) may only correct
manifest errors or present newly discovered evidence. Id. Petitioners may not rely on Rule 59(e)
to introduce new evidence or raise new arguments or theories. Id.
Here, the Court made no mistake in its Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Case. This
Court reviews the information submitted in a motion filed by a party and any briefing entered in
support or opposition of said motion. The Court does not incorporate information contained in
other motions. If a party does not include pertinent information within its motion or suggestions,
that party cannot cry foul that the Court should have looked at information in a completely separate
motion to bridge the gap a party leaves out information that may be determinative of the success
or failure of said motion. Further, even in review of Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion to File First
Amended Petition Under Seal and supporting documents there are no meritorious legal arguments
as to why the Petition should be sealed.1 For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Pro Se Petition to Show
Cause and Reconsideration is DENIED.
1 Plaintiff argues that his self-titled “Bill in Equity” was intended by him to be sealed, and to be filed by the Clerk of
the Court and heard by the Chancellor in Chambers to the exclusion of the public and the press, not to be reviewed on
any public website, government or private, including “PACER” and never to be for publication. Plaintiff further states
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 3

3
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Pro Se Petition to Show Cause and Reconsideration is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: April 21, 2026
/s/ Douglas Harpool______________
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
that the Bill in Equity concerns the breaches of trust committed by defendants is intended to be without the “Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure” and to be subject to the rules of the Chancery Court. (Doc. 8-1, page 1-2).
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 3 of 3