Tamond E. Thomas v. Milan Berry, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION TAMOND E. THOMAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 2:26-cv-00013-MTS ) MILAN BERRY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on numerous filings by pro se prisoner Plaintiff Tamond E. Thomas. First is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Doc. [2]. The Court must deny his Application. Since he is a prisoner, federal law requires Plaintiff to submit a certified copy of his inmate account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint with any application to proceed without prepayment of fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). He has not done so to date, though this requirement has been communicated to him multiple times. His very Application noted the requirement. Doc. [2] at 2. And, on February 13, 2026, the Clerk of Court sent him a letter stating, “If you did not include a certified copy of your inmate account statement for the six (6) month period immediately preceding the submission of your complaint and do not have a good reason for not submitting it (e.g., institution refuses to provide), please do so within thirty (30) days or the court may dismiss your action.” The Court will therefore deny his Application and require him to resubmit a proper application accompanied by a certified copy of his account statement no later than Wednesday, May 06, 2026.

Plaintiff also has sent in nearly two-dozen other filings in this matter.* Among them are four Motions. See Docs. [7], [21], [25], and [26]. After reviewing these four Motions in full, the Court concludes each is frivolous. Therefore, the Court will deny them all without further elaboration. Cf. United States v. Miller, 857 F. App’x 877, 879 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (noting district judges “will normally” address reasons for rejecting a party’s nonfrivolous arguments); Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distrib. Co., 961 F.2d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 1992) (noting that district courts “need not make detailed findings or explanations” even when denying “a colorable motion” where “the reasons for denying are apparent from the record”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. [2], is DENIED without prejudice. No later than Wednesday, May 06, 2026, Plaintiff must prepay the $405 filing fee in full or must submit a properly completed application along with a certified copy of his inmate account statement. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this action without further notice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order, Doc. [7], is DENIED. * In addition, within just a two-month period, Plaintiff has submitted nearly forty filings in another matter before this Court. See Thomas v. Pike County, 2:26-cv-0017-PLC (E.D. Mo.).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Quash, Doc. [21], is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Cease and Desist, Doc. [25], is DENIED.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief, Doc. [26], is DENIED.

Dated this 15th day of April 2026. ) □□ id UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE _3-