UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

SCOTTY LEE WHITE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 1:23-cv-00208-SNLJ PAUL HOPKINS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This closed case is before the Court on a motion regarding docketing [Doc. 123] filed by Scotty Lee White. This case was dismissed on July 2, 2024 [Doc. 67], affirmed on appeal on February 12, 2025 [Doc. 91], and the mandate was issued on April 8, 2025 [Doc. 105]. Despite the dismissal, White continued to file motions in this Court. See [Doc. 106]. After the mandate, the Court denied motions filed by White, which he appealed [Doc. 107]. The Court’s Order was affirmed on appeal on July 8, 2025 [Doc. 119]. Exhibiting contumacious behavior, White has continued to send email communications to court staff for purposes other than submitting documents for filing in a pending case in this Court. As a result, the Court issued an Order on July 10, 2025, directing White to cease sending emails to the MOED_SRL_ Filings email, which is designated solely for self-represented litigants to submit documents for filing in pending cases in this Court. He was warned that failure to comply with the Order's terms would lead to sanctions. Despite the Court’s Order, White filed the current motion regarding docketing and submitted another appeal.

White’s motion in this closed case will be denied as moot. All further frivolous motions filed in this closed case will be summarily denied. Furthermore, the filing of any future motions in this closed case, except for a notice of appeal or appellate documents filed in accordance with federal law, may result in a filing restriction.

Federal courts have the inherent authority to impose filing restrictions on litigants who abuse the judicial process and waste the Court’s resources with frivolous filings. See generally, In re Tyler,

(8th Cir. 1988) (upholding imposition of a filing restriction based on frivolous filings). “Every paper filed with

the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.” See Day v. Day,

(1993) (entering a filing restriction to prevent a pro se petitioner

from filing repetitious and frivolous requests). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that White’s motion regarding docketing [Doc. 123] is DENIED as moot because this is a closed case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that White SHALL NOT file any additional

motions in this closed case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that White SHALL NOT include the MOED _SRL_ Filings email on emails that he is sending to other courts. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER WILL RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS. SO ORDERED this 14th day of July, 2025.

JE th 4 ff / tite» a ae tf, STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE