stating that a district court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s action for failure to comply with a court order on its own initiative
How later courts described this case
- stating that a district court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s action for failure to comply with a court order on its own initiative
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DWAYNE ROBISON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:19-cv-02480-SPM
)
LISA SANDERSON, et al., )
)
)
Defendants. )
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On January 6, 2020, the Court ordered
plaintiff Dwayne Robison to either file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the
filing fee. (Docket No. 4). Plaintiff was given thirty days to comply. He has not responded.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, this action will be dismissed.
Background
Plaintiff is a pro se litigant currently incarcerated at the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and
Correctional Center in Bonne Terre, Missouri. On August 30, 2019, he filed a civil action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket No. 1). The complaint named Lisa Sanderson and Elizabeth
Atterberry as defendants. At the time of filing, plaintiff did not file a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee.
Discussion
On January 6, 2020, the Court ordered plaintiff to either file a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis or pay the filing fee. Plaintiff was given thirty days in which to comply with the Court’s
order. To aid his compliance, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to send plaintiff a copy of the
Court’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis form. The Court advised plaintiff that failure to
comply with the Court’s order would result in the dismissal of his case without prejudice and
without further notice.
The deadline for plaintiff to respond to the Court’s order was February 5, 2020. That date
has passed, and plaintiff has not filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the $400 filing
fee. Moreover, he has not filed a motion requesting an extension of time in which to fulfill the
Court’s directive.
Under Rule 41(b), an action may be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See also Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (stating that a
district court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s action for failure to comply with a court order on its
own initiative). Because plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order of January 6, 2020, or
filed any sort of motion seeking an extension of time in which to comply, the Court will dismiss
this action without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure
to comply with the Court’s order of January 6, 2020. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A separate order
of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this dismissal will not constitute a “strike” under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2020.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE