govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_26-cv-00772-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
ROZINA JONES-WILLIAMS,  
 
         Plaintiff,  
 v.  
 
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF 
REVENUE, et al.,  
 
         Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
  
 No. 4:26-cv-00772-SEP 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Rozina Jones-Williams’s second Motion for 
Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Doc. [6], and second Motion for Temporary Restraining 
Order, Doc. [8].  On May 19, 2026, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in 
Forma Pauperis, Doc. [2], and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Doc. [3], because 
Plaintiff had neither satisfied the standard for a temporary restraining order nor provided 
sufficient information to proceed without paying the filing fee.  Doc. [4].  For the same reasons 
and others set forth below, the Court denies the pending motions and dismisses the Complaint.   
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 
Plaintiff’s second Motion for Temporary Restraining Order asserts that a property at 3117 
North Grand Boulevard “was redeemed and should not have been subject to further tax sale 
proceeding.”  Doc. [8] at 1.  Plaintiff asserts that she “faces immediate and irreparable harm 
because the property may be transferred, encumbered, condemned, altered, demolished, 
occupied, or otherwise placed beyond the Court’s ability to restore the status quo.”  Id.  She 
further alleges that “the property may possess historical significance” and “[t]he balance of 
equities favors maintaining the status quo until the Court can fully adjudicate the merits of the 
parties’ claims.”  Id.  She seeks an order prohibiting any “transfer, conveyance, recording, 
assignment, encumbrance, [] disposition,” or “condemnation, demolition, alteration, destruction, 
or impairment of the property pending final judgment” and “[p]rohibiting interference with 
Plaintiff’s claimed possessory and property interests pending resolution of this matter.”  Id. at 1-
Case: 4:26-cv-00772-SEP     Doc. #:  9     Filed: 06/09/26     Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
-2- 
 
2.  Plaintiff submitted a declaration1 restating the allegations in her Motion for Temporary 
Restraining Order, Doc. [8], requesting “proper evidentiary proceedings,” and seeking 
reconsideration of the Court’s denial of her prior Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma 
Pauperis, Doc. [2].  Doc. [8-1].  She requests an expedited evidentiary hearing.  Doc. [8] at 2.     
DISCUSSION 
After carefully reviewing Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Doc. [8], 
and Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Doc. [6], the Court concludes that Plaintiff has 
neither satisfied the standard for a temporary restraining order nor provided sufficient 
information to proceed without paying the filing fee, in violation of the Court’s prior Order, Doc. 
[4].  Therefore, both motions are denied and the Complaint dismissed.  
I. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order fails. 
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 65(b)(1), a court may issue a temporary 
restraining order without notice to the adverse party only if (A) “specific facts in an affidavit or a 
verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result 
to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition”; and (B) “the movant’s 
attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be 
required.”  Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege the “immediate and irreparable” loss she will 
suffer absent an injunction issued before hearing from Defendants.  From her allegations, it is not 
clear if any tax sale proceedings have occurred or are imminent; nor does she clearly allege any 
protectable interest in 3117 N. Grand Boulevard.  The docket contains no evidence that Plaintiff 
has served any Defendants, and she has not explained why such notice should not be required.  
She has thus failed to support her request for a temporary restraining order.  
II. Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order or shown that she is qualified to 
proceed in forma pauperis.  
In its May 19, 2026, Order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s first Motion to Proceed in Forma 
Pauperis because it was not on a Court-provided form and did not provide sufficient information 
about Plaintiff’s finances.  Doc. [4] at 2.  The Court required Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee 
or file an adequate motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs within 14 days of the 
date of the Order.  Doc. [4] at 2.  The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to do so would result in 
 
1 Both affidavits and declarations serve as written sworn testimony to support motions.  Declarations are 
signed under penalty of perjury, see 28 U.S.C. § 1746, without a notary, while affidavits must be 
notarized.  Jones-Williams submitted a document signed under penalty of perjury. 
Case: 4:26-cv-00772-SEP     Doc. #:  9     Filed: 06/09/26     Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
-3- 
 
dismissal of the action without prejudice.  Id.  Though Plaintiff has filed a second Motion for 
Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on the Court-provided form, Doc. [6], like the previous 
motion, Doc. [2], it does not provide sufficient information about Plaintiff’s finances.  As before, 
Plaintiff provides no information about her income, her assets, her debts, her obligations, or any 
other relevant financial information.  See Doc. [4] at 3-4.  In response to inquiries about wages 
and money in cash or checking or savings account, Plaintiff wrote “N/A.”  Doc. [6] at 3-4.  
Plaintiff checked a box indicating that she received income from disability or worker’s 
compensation payments in the past 12 months, but in the section requiring the applicant to 
describe “each source of money and state the amount that you received and what you expect to 
receive in the future,” Plaintiff wrote that she receives “widow benefits,” but “no monetary 
amount as of yet.”  Doc. [6] at 3.  In the section requiring the applicant to report monthly 
housing, transportation, utilities, or loan payments, or other monthly expenses (describe and 
provide the amount of the monthly expense),” Plaintiff wrote “[y]es but inflation.”  Doc. [6] at 4.   
Because Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s Order 20 days later, the Court 
dismisses the Complaint without prejudice.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Dudley v. Miles, 597 F. 
App’x 392 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal without prejudice where self-
represented plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint despite being cautioned that dismissal 
could result from failure to do so); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district 
court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order). 
 Accordingly, 
 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second Motion to Proceed in Forma 
Pauperis, Doc. [6], is DENIED. 
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second Motion for a Temporary 
Restraining Order, Doc. [8], is DENIED.  
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.  A 
separate order of dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.   
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.  
Dated this 9th day of June, 2026.   
 
 _______________________________________ 
 SARAH E. PITLYK 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE  
Case: 4:26-cv-00772-SEP     Doc. #:  9     Filed: 06/09/26     Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight