Dustin M. Baker v. State of Missouri, et al.

Baker · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · April 7, 2026 · No. 2:26-cv-00020-JMD

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denies without prejudice all pending motions in Dustin M. Baker’s prisoner civil rights action. The court denies in forma pauperis status because Baker did not provide a certified inmate account statement, strikes Brandi M. Rhodes as a plaintiff because she did not sign the complaint, denies appointment of counsel, and denies mandamus and injunctive relief. Baker is ordered to pay the filing fee or submit a renewed in forma pauperis motion with a certified account statement by April 21, 2026.

Holdings

  1. A prisoner seeking to proceed in forma pauperis must provide the required certified inmate account statement, and the court denied Baker's motion without prejudice because he had not supplied it.
  2. Rhodes could not remain a plaintiff because she did not sign the complaint, and Baker could not represent her in federal court.
  3. Appointment of counsel was not warranted at that stage of the civil action, and the motion was denied without prejudice.
  4. The federal district court lacked jurisdiction under the federal mandamus statute to compel state or county officials to perform their duties.
  5. Baker was not entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction because he had not shown certain, great, and imminent irreparable harm or a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits; the request was denied without prejudice.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Baker qualified to proceed in forma pauperis without filing a certified inmate account statement.
  2. Whether Brandi M. Rhodes could remain a co-plaintiff when she did not sign the complaint and Baker could not represent her.
  3. Whether appointment of counsel was warranted in the civil action at its early stage.
  4. Whether the court had mandamus jurisdiction to compel state or county officials to act.
  5. Whether Baker was entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction based on alleged denial of legal materials, notary services, and medical care.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (8)

  • Hobson v. Schmitt, No. 4:23-cv-00781-SRC, 2023 WL 4234550, at *3 (E.D. Mo. June 28, 2023)(followed)
  • Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998)(followed)
  • Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018)(followed)
  • Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322 (8th Cir. 1986)(followed)
  • Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981)(followed)
  • Roudachevski v. All-American Care Centers, Inc., 648 F.3d 701, 706 (8th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Mod. Computer Sys., Inc. v. Mod. Banking Sys., Inc., 871 F.2d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 1989) (en banc)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…