Dinkins v. Missouri

JOHN A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on a document filed by plaintiff Robert O. Dinkins titled "Motion of Deliberately Mishandling Documents, Failing to Send Me Complete Copy of Original Lawsuit of Over a Hundred Pages Causing Cover Up and Dismissal." (Docket No. 21).

The motion is confusing and does not appear to seek any specific relief. However, as far as the Court can tell, plaintiff is alleging that he sent over a hundred documents to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Plaintiff claims it is clear he sent these documents, because the envelope containing them had twenty stamps on it. He has attached a photocopy of the envelope, addressed to the Court of Appeals, to his motion. (Docket No. 21 at 6). Plaintiff appears to be upset that in response, he received a letter from the Court of Appeals containing only eight pages. Attached to the motion is a copy of the letter. (Docket No. 21 at 5). The letter advises the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri that plaintiff had attempted to file "a possible second notice of appeal" in the Court of Appeals, when it should have been filed in this Court. Plaintiff suggests that this action amounts to "tampering with mail" and a "general cover up."

Having reviewed the motion, the Court finds that it is without merit. As plaintiff notes, he attempted to file numerous documents in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals sent those documents to this Court to be filed, as stated in the letter. The documents were filed in this case as a second notice of appeal, in accordance with plaintiff's own caption. (Docket No. 20). There is no evidence of tampering or a cover up. Therefore, the motion will be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's "Motion of Deliberately Mishandling Documents, Failing to Send Me Complete Copy of Original Lawsuit of Over a Hundred Pages Causing Cover Up and Dismissal" (Docket No. 21) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from the denial of this motion would not be taken in good faith.

Dated this 1^st day of December 2020.

/s/_________

JOHN A. ROSS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE