Steelman v. A&M Investments, LLC

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for relief [ECF No. 17 ] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 08/24/2012. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CONNIE STEELMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
A&M INVESTMENTS, LLC,
d/b/a Rolla Family Clinic,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV00182 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for relief. In her pro se
motion, plaintiff seeks to have the Court remind defense counsel “to comply with
COURTS LAWS OF ASSERTIVENESS, and NOT HARASSMENT.” In her
conclusory motion for relief, plaintiff appears to be asserting that she thinks that
defense counsel is attempting to use their knowledge of the Federal Rules and case law
to their advantage in this action.
The Court recognizes that plaintiff is an individual and finds she may proceed in
this case pro se, that is, without the assistance of counsel. That said, as a pro se party
plaintiff must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of
this Court. Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th
Cir.1996) ( pro se representation does not excuse a party from complying with a court's
orders and with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); see also, U.S. v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d

651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994); Boswell v. Honorable Governor of Texas, 138 F.Supp.2d 782,
785 (N.D. Texas 2000).
In the past plaintiff has chosen to communicate with the Court through letters
and unstructured and conclusory correspondence. The Court will no longer accept
letters from the plaintiff, and any letters will be returned without consideration or filing.
In the future, plaintiff shall communicate with the Court through written motions and
filings, with proper citations to the Federal Rules and case law, all of which must be
properly served on opposing counsel. Plaintiff’s motions and memoranda before this
Court shall not be brought for an improper purpose or to harass or delay these
proceedings, and she is reminded that there can be severe ramifications for a party’s
failure to comply with both the Federal Rules and Orders from this Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for relief [ECF No. 17] is
DENIED.
So Ordered this 24th day of August, 2012.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-