Mary Woodard’s lawsuit against St. Charles County, filed jointly with her husband Michael Woodard in September 2025, was dismissed in February 2026. Before the dismissal, a federal judge struck Mary Woodard from the case entirely because she had not signed the pleadings herself and could not be represented in court by her husband, who is not an attorney. A later motion to reopen the case was denied in May 2026.
What the Lawsuit Alleged
The Woodards brought their claims under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, the federal civil rights statute. The complaint said Michael Woodard was put on trial without an attorney, was improperly charged with trespass and felony property damage, had a tracking device placed on his car, and that the couple’s child was taken away based on false accusations. They asked for monetary damages, the return of their child, and for various individuals to be fined or jailed.1Justia Dockets. Woodard v. Saint Charles County, Filing 7
The case landed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri as case number 4:25-cv-01468, assigned to District Judge Cristian M. Stevens.2Justia Dockets. Woodard v. Saint Charles County, Docket
Why Mary Woodard Was Struck From the Case
On February 9, 2026, Judge Stevens ordered Mary B. Woodard removed as a plaintiff. The court found that she had not signed the initial pleadings herself, and that Michael Woodard, who is not a lawyer, could not represent her in federal court. The judge also noted that the financial affidavit bearing Mary Woodard’s name appeared to be in the same handwriting as the other documents filed by Michael Woodard, and that the exhibits about the trespass and property damage charges named only Michael Woodard.1Justia Dockets. Woodard v. Saint Charles County, Filing 7
This is a rule that catches many self-represented litigants. In federal court, one non-lawyer cannot file papers on behalf of another person, even a spouse. Mary Woodard could have remained a party only by filing her own pleadings or hiring an attorney.
Why the Case Was Dismissed
The same February 9, 2026 order dismissed the entire case. The reason was procedural: the Woodards had not responded to a show cause order issued on January 21, 2026. That order followed mail sent to Michael Woodard being returned as undeliverable in December 2025, with no new address on file for him.2Justia Dockets. Woodard v. Saint Charles County, Docket
The Attempt to Reopen the Case
Four days after dismissal, on February 13, 2026, Michael Woodard filed a change-of-address notice and a motion for extension of time. He said he had been held in St. Charles County custody from December 20, 2025 to January 20, 2026 on what he called a false charge, and that his incarceration had kept him from staying on top of the case.3Justia Dockets. Woodard v. Saint Charles County, Filing 11
Judge Stevens denied the motion on May 27, 2026. The timing did not line up. The undeliverable mail was returned on December 17, 2025, three days before Woodard said his incarceration began. The show cause order was not issued until January 21, 2026, the day after he said he was released. The incarceration did not overlap with the periods when the court needed him to update his address or respond.3Justia Dockets. Woodard v. Saint Charles County, Filing 11
The judge also noted that Michael Woodard had already filed a new, separate lawsuit against St. Charles County raising similar allegations, Woodard v. St. Charles County, No. 4:26-cv-355-SPM, filed March 10, 2026. Relief was denied under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Rule 60(b), and the case stayed closed.3Justia Dockets. Woodard v. Saint Charles County, Filing 11
Other Federal Filings by the Woodards
The St. Charles County civil rights case was one of several federal filings by the Woodards in 2025 and 2026, all handled without an attorney, and all dismissed.
- Woodard v. Oakwood (4:25-cv-00513), a personal injury case filed April 14, 2025 in the Eastern District of Missouri before Senior District Judge Rodney W. Sippel. The court allowed the Woodards to proceed without paying filing fees but denied appointed counsel and ordered them to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. When they did not respond, the case was dismissed without prejudice on September 16, 2025.4Justia Dockets. Woodard v. Oakwood, Docket
- Woodard v. St. Charles County Juvenile Justice Center Courts (6:25-cv-03147), filed June 6, 2025 in the Western District of Missouri before Judge M. Douglas Harpool under the False Claims Act. The motion to proceed without paying fees was denied on June 10, 2025, and the case was terminated. Mail to the plaintiffs was later returned as undeliverable.5PACER Monitor. Woodard v. St. Charles County Juvenile Justice Center Courts
As of May 2026, the primary case (4:25-cv-01468) remains closed. The newer case filed by Michael Woodard against St. Charles County, 4:26-cv-355-SPM, remained on the docket with similar claims of harassment, vehicle tracking, child removal, and criminal charges.3Justia Dockets. Woodard v. Saint Charles County, Filing 11 Mary Woodard is not listed as a plaintiff in that later filing based on the available docket information.