Steelman v. City of Salem

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Court is DENIED. (Doc. No. 23.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion to Court is DENIED as moot. (Doc. No. 24.) IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. (Doc. No. 25.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 10/5/2012. (NCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

CONNIE STEELMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF SALEM,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:12CV00185 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion (Doc. No. 24) to strike
Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 23) requesting “. . . all of Defendant’s council, to comply
with COURTS LAWS OF ASSERTIVENESS, and NOT HARASSMENT.” Defendant
notes and the Court agrees that apart from this statement, Plaintiff offers no specific
information regarding the allegedly objectionable nature of counsel’s conduct. In
addition, Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendant’s motion to strike and the time to
do so has expired. Therefore, the Court finds no basis for granting either Plaintiff’s
motion for unspecified relief or Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s motion.
Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Inasmuch as the filing fee in this action has been paid, there is no reason to grant Plaintiff
such status and the motion will be denied as moot.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Court is DENIED. (Doc.
No. 23.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Motion to Court is DENIED as moot. (Doc. No. 24.)
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in
forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. (Doc. No. 25.)

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 5th day of October, 2012.

2