EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

CLINT PHILLIPS, III, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:24-CV-89 RLW ) ST. LOUIS COUNTY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on self-represented plaintiff Clint Phillips. III’s post- dismissal motion for an extension of time to pay the filing fee. ECF No. 10. On February 15, 2024, this Court identified plaintiff as a three striker within the confines of

(g),1 and determined his allegations failed to show he was under “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Consequently, the Court denied his application to proceed in the district court without prepayment of fees and costs and dismissed his amended complaint “without prejudice to plaintiff refiling a fully-paid complaint.” See ECF Nos. 7 & 8. The Court will, therefore, decline to grant the instant motion for an extension of time to pay the filing fee because this action is closed. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with the allegations brought in this matter, he may refile a new complaint and pay the full filing fee at the time of filing. See Gonzalez v. United States,

(8th Cir.), cert. denied,

(2022) (“After three strikes, a litigant loses the right to sue without prepaying the filing fee.”)

1Plaintiff has previously brought at least three civil actions that were dismissed on grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Phillips v. St. Louis City Police Officers, No. 4:17-cv-1637-HEA (E.D. Mo. Jan. 10, 2018); Phillips v. Romeo, No. 4:17-cv-1636-NAB (E.D. Mo. Aug. 4, 2017); Phillips v. City of St. Louis, No. 4:11-cv-791-CEJ (E.D. Mo. May 19, 2011). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's post-dismissal motion for extension of time to pay the filing fee [ECF No. 10] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith.

ai An L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 8th day of March, 2024.

_2-