Opinion
4:23-cv-00223-MTS
03-01-2024
JUAN MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of Jovan Mitchell, deceased, Plaintiff, v. SAINT LOUIS COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MATTHEW T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
For the reasons explained by the Court this same date in Perry v. St. Louis County, 4:22-cv-00140, ECF No. 107 (E.D. Mo.),
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Defendant Ad Litem, Doc. [22], is DENIED.
Unlike in Perry, in this matter, Plaintiff submitted a document he calls the County's “excess coverage policy” of insurance. But Plaintiff did so only in his reply brief. See Fish v. United States, 748 Fed.Appx. 91, 92 n.2 (8th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (noting a reply brief is “too late to raise a new issue before the district court”). In any event, he merely attached the 159-page insurance policy and did not cite to what provision of the policy insured the relevant Defendant here for the relevant conduct he alleges in the Complaint. The Court declines to do so on its own. See Little v. Cox's Supermarkets, 71 F.3d 637, 641 (7th Cir. 1995) (opining it is “reasonable to assume” that a district court “is not required to scour the party's various submissions to piece together appropriate arguments”).