govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_22-cv-00276-1

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
THEODIS BROWN, SR., et al., 
 
 Plaintiffs, 
 v. 
 
RICO DEFENDANTS NAMED 
AND UNNAMED, et al., 
 
 Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
 

 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
Before the Court are pro se Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen, Doc. [25], Motions to Compel, 
Docs. [26], [29], [38], Motion to Strike, Doc. [30], and second Motion to Proceed Without 
Prepayment of Fees and Costs, Doc. [34]. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are 
denied. 
BACKGROUND 
On September 12, 2022, the Court dismissed this wrongful death action because the 
Complaint did not plead sufficient factual allegations to support a claim for relief. Doc. [12] 
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). The Court later denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for 
Reconsideration, Doc. [14], for failure to point to any manifest error of law or fact, identify any 
newly discovered evidence, or present any other reason justifying relief under Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure 59 and 60. Doc. [15]. Plaintiffs appealed, Doc. [17], and the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit summarily affirmed. Doc. [22]. Since September 3, 
2025, Plaintiffs have lodged 11 filings with the Court, including the six motions at issue. 
DISCUSSION 
None of Plaintiffs’ motions has merit. From what the Court can discern, Plaintiffs appear 
to generally reallege claims from their now-dismissed wrongful death action. See, e.g., Doc. [25] 
at 15 (“unethical renegade nurse Alicia 2nd floor icu who ploted murder”); Doc. [26] at 2 (“son 
murdered ICU by wrongdoers illegal hate group membership on brown family”); Doc. [29] at 14 
(“denied nutritional item like feeding tube took out on Aug 6th . .. air supply stopped to let her 
die”). And they appear to seek relief that is foreclosed by the case’s procedural posture. See, 
e.g., Doc. [29] at 4 (“Motion to compel Rico jury trial and judge issue contempt of courts order 
Case: 4:22-cv-00276-SEP Doc. #: 39 Filed: 06/12/26 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
us marshal fbi arrest hate crime member[s]”); Doc. [30] at 1 (“motion to strike defendants and 
rico actors sham pleading”). Though Plaintiffs invoke Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42 and 
37 in two of their motions, Docs. [25] at 3, [26] at 2, neither rule authorizes relief from a final 
judgment. Rule 42 governs consolidation and separate trials of pending actions, and Rule 37 
governs discovery sanctions. Consolidation and discovery are not at issue where, as here, the 
action was dismissed, Doc. [12], the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for consideration, Doc. [14], 
and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, Doc. [22]. 
Liberally construing pro se filings as it must, Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th 
Cir. 2015), the Court reads Plaintiffs’ motions as seeking relief from a final judgment under 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Even thus understood, the motions warrant denial as 
untimely and meritless. Motions under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (3) must be filed “no more than a 
year after the entry of the judgment,” and motions under any Rule 60(b) subsection must be filed 
“within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Plaintiffs have moved to reopen nearly 
three years after the Court entered judgment, well outside the one-year limit and beyond any time 
frame that might be considered reasonable. And Plaintiffs fail to allege mistake, fraud, or any 
other ground for relief enumerated in Rule 60. Regardless, the submissions do not cure the 
deficiency that required dismissal: Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim failed because they alleged 
no facts showing that any defendant acted under color of state law. See Doc. [12] at 4. 
Accordingly, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reopen, Doc. [25], is DENIED. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining motions, Docs. [26], [29], [30], [34], 
[38] are DENIED as moot. 
Dated this 12th day of June, 2026. 
 
 _____________________________________ 
 SARAH E. PITLYK 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case: 4:22-cv-00276-SEP Doc. #: 39 Filed: 06/12/26 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight