govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-1_24-cv-00204-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION 
 
ANNDELL R. LAWRENCE, JR., ) 
 ) 
               Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
          vs. )  Case No. 1:24-cv-0204-MTS 
 ) 
LARESHA REED, et al., ) 
 ) 
               Defendants. ) 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
In this action, Plaintiff Anndell R. Lawrence, Jr.  has missed multiple deadlines.  See, 
e.g., Docs. [45] & [57].  He has done so again.  Before the Court is his  Motion for Leave to 
File an Amended Complaint.  Doc. [67].  In the  proposed amended complaint , he seeks to 
rejoin parties that the Court has dismissed for his failure to meet deadlines.  Compare, e.g., id. 
at 3 (noting he seeks to add in Crystal Woods), with  Doc. [57] (dismissing Woods as a 
Defendant for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the case against her).  Unfortunately for Plaintiff, 
this Motion itself is late.  
The Case Management Order required “all motions for joinder of additional parties or 
motions to file amended pleadings” be filed “no later than June 06, 2026.”  Doc. [63] at 1.  See 
also Rosario-Diaz v. Gonzalez , 140 F.3d 312, 315 (1st Cir. 1998)  (noting “litigants have an 
unflagging duty to comply with clearly communicated case -management orders ” and “a 
litigant who ignores a case-management deadline does so at his peril”).  That deadline was not 
only ordered by the Court , but it was also  the exact date the parties requested that the Court 
order.  Doc. [60] at 1 (Joint Proposed Scheduling Plan).  Nevertheless, Plaintiff filed the instant 
Motion on June 08, 2026, two days after the deadline.  Doc. [67].  It is not late, Plaintiff writes 
Case: 1:24-cv-00204-MTS     Doc. #:  68     Filed: 06/10/26     Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>
-2- 
 
in his Motion, because June 6th  fell on a Saturday.  Id. ¶ 3.  He cites Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 6 to claim that his Motion therefore  was due on Monday, June 08, 2026, “the next 
business day.”  Id.  That legal conclusion is incorrect.   
By its text, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)(1) governs only “[w]hen [a] period [of 
time] is stated in days.”  But the Court did not provide x number of days to file an amendment; 
rather, the Court provided a date certain—one  that the parties jointly requested , no less.  As 
such, Rule 6(a) did not apply, and Plaintiff’s Motion was due June 06, 2026.  See J.C. v. 
Zimmerman, 150 F.4th 136, 147 n.5 (2d Cir. 2025) (“Rule 6 . . . do[es] not apply here because 
the district court imposed a specific date for compliance, rather than a period of time.”); Destra 
v. Demings, 725 F. App’ x 855, 859 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 
advisory committee’s note to 2009 amendment); Violette v. P.A. Days, Inc. , 427 F.3d 1015, 
1016 (6th Cir. 2005); see also, e.g., Myers v. Adam’s Smokehouse, LLC, 4:25-cv-0860-MTS, 
2025 WL 2522430, at *1 n.* (E.D. Mo. Sept. 2, 2025). 
Accordingly, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED  that Plaintiff’s Motion to Add Party, Doc. [67], is 
DENIED for the reasons explained herein. 
Dated this 10th day of June 2026. 
 
             
MATTHEW T. SCHELP 
      UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case: 1:24-cv-00204-MTS     Doc. #:  68     Filed: 06/10/26     Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight