Johnson v. National Credit Management

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT W. JOHNSON, )

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:19-cv-02573-PLC

NATIONAL CREDIT

MANAGEMENT, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On January 23, 2020, the Court

directed plaintiff Robert W. Johnson to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Docket No.

4). Plaintiff has failed to comply. Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, this action will be

dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Background

Plaintiff is a pro se litigant. He filed this civil action pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act (FDCPA) on September 16, 2019. (Docket No. 1). He named National Credit

Management and F. Nash as defendants. (Docket No. 1 at 2-3).

In his complaint, plaintiff claimed that he “has been receiving threatening letters and phone

calls from Defendants concerning an alleged student debt.” (Docket No. 1 at 8). He asserted that

defendants have repeatedly harassed him via letter and telephone, despite him telling defendants

to stop. Plaintiff stated that defendants are committing fraud by not providing valid proof of

jurisdiction and “reasons for alleged debts owed.” He also stated that defendants “are only

assuming [he] owes debts,” and “have threatened to garnish any payments validated from [his]

checks or accounts.” Plaintiff contended that defendants have violated his due process rights and

are “abusing public integrity.”

Plaintiff sought $100.1 billion in punitive damages, and $100 million for future damages.

(Docket No. 1 at 7). He also demanded 100% ownership of defendants’ “Assets & Corporations.”

On January 23, 2020, the Court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty

days. (Docket No. 4). In the order, the Court noted that there were deficiencies in the complaint

that made it subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Specifically, the Court explained

that plaintiff had failed to state a claim because his allegations were vague, conclusory, and merely

recited the elements of a cause of action under the FDCPA. The Court directed plaintiff to file an

amended complaint, and included instructions on how to do so. The Court also directed the Clerk

of Court to send plaintiff a copy of the Court’s civil rights complaint form in order to aid his

compliance. Plaintiff was given thirty days to file an amended complaint.

Discussion

As discussed above, on January 23, 2020, the Court ordered plaintiff to file an amended

complaint within thirty days. At that time, the Court advised him that failure to comply would

result in the dismissal of his case without prejudice and without further notice. More than thirty

days have elapsed, and plaintiff has not submitted an amended complaint. Furthermore, he has not

filed a motion with the Court requesting an extension of time in which to comply.

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 (8" Cir. 1986) (stating that 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 23, 2020, or filed

any type 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 23, 2020. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A separate order

of dismissal will be entered herewith.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in

good faith.

Dated this <2 day of Ldhok. 2020.

pelt he

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE