Street v. Hinman et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DISTRICT
KYLE DOMINIC STREET, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 	1:24-cv-0121-MTS
)
ROY HINMAN, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This 	matter 	is 	before 	the 	Court 	on 	Defendants’ 	Motion 	to 	Compel 	Initial
Disclosures. 	Doc. [48]. 	In the Motion, Defendants detail that, though Plaintiff has
served his own discovery requests upon Defendants, he still has failed to provide
Defendants with his initial disclosures. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). Plaintiff’s deadline
to provide his initial disclosures to Defendants passed more than four months ago. 	Doc.
[45] ¶ 3. In the materials that Defendants submitted with their Motion, Plaintiff partially
blamed his failure to 	provide his initial disclosures on his time in administrative
segregation. 	But Defendants provide an affidavit from Plaintiff’s case manager that
establishes that Plaintiff was released from administrative segregation over one month
ago. 	What is more, Plaintiff’s case manager declares that Plaintiff remained able to
write, send, and receive letters, purchase stamps, and access materials in the law library.
And, again, Plaintiff somehow managed to send discovery requests to Defendants. Were
all that not enough, Plaintiff did not even file a response to Defendants’ instant Motion,
Case: 1:24-cv-00121-MTS Doc. #: 51 Filed: 01/27/26 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

and his time to do so has passed. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Providing the required initial disclosures is a fundamental obligation in litigating
in federal court. 	A party that fails to do so “unfairly inhibits its opponent’s ability to
properly prepare, unnecessarily prolongs litigation, and undermines the district court’s
management of the case.” 	Saudi v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 427 F.3d 271, 278 (4th
Cir. 2005). 	For this reason, no justification short of the momentous could excuse a
plaintiff’s failure to provide initial disclosures even one month late, let alone four
months. 	If Plaintiff has such a remarkable excuse, he has declined to share it with the
Court. 	Based on Defendants’ filings, including the sworn declaration they included,
Plaintiff plainly had the opportunity to provide his initial disclosures—or at least tell the
Court why he did not do so. 	“The Court has no doubt that litigating an action while
incarcerated is more difficult than litigating one while at liberty,” but Plaintiff’s “status as
a self-represented litigant or as an incarcerated individual does not relieve him from the
requirement to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or this Court’s Local Rules.”
Jeude v. City of St. Louis, 4:22-cv-0989-MTS, 2023 WL 5507329, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Aug.
25, 2023). 	The Court concludes that dismissal is warranted here. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(f)(1)(C); id. at 37(b)(2)(A)(v); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Though the Court believes that it could dismiss this matter with prejudice, see
Lephart v. Franklin Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 14 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1993) (table decision)
(“Where a party willfully fails to comply with discovery, dismissal with prejudice is
proper.” (citing Adams v. J.W. Jones Const. Co., 703 F.2d 483, 485 (10th Cir. 1983))),
such a dismissal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has said, is a “drastic
Case: 1:24-cv-00121-MTS Doc. #: 51 Filed: 01/27/26 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

and extremely harsh sanction,” DiMercurio v. Malcom, 716 F.3d 1138, 1140 (8th Cir.
2013). 	With that in mind, the Court chooses to use the “lesser sanction” of dismissal
without prejudice here. See Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d 372, 374 (8th Cir. 1983) (per
curiam). 	Dismissing this action without prejudice will allow Plaintiff to thoughtfully
consider whether he is prepared to prosecute an action against these Defendants and, if
so, allow Plaintiff to file this action again if he determines that he is prepared. 	See
Tolden v. City’s Finest, LLC, 4:23-cv-1535-MTS, 2025 WL 252466, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Jan.
21, 2025).
Accordingly,
The Court will enter herewith an Order of Dismissal, which will dismiss this
action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a).
So ORDERED this 27th day of January 2026.
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 1:24-cv-00121-MTS Doc. #: 51 Filed: 01/27/26 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>