stating that 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 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
KAREN TATUM, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:20-cv-00121-HEA
)
DELAWARE NORTH SPORTS SERVICE )
N.Y., et al., )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On April 20, 2020, the Court ordered
plaintiff Karen Tatum to file an amended complaint within twenty-one days. More than twenty-
one days have elapsed, and plaintiff has failed to comply. Therefore, for the reasons discussed
below, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.
Background
Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant. On January 24, 2020, she filed this civil action against
Delaware North Sports Service N.Y., Felicia Lamar, Martin Bethea, Tim O’Connor, Linda
Johnson-Hoernig, Linda Thorpe, Brandy Watson, and Donna Bommarito. (Docket No. 1). The
complaint generally alleged employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990. Along with the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, which was granted. (Docket No. 2).
Because plaintiff was proceeding pro se, the Court reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires the Court to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it
is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim. On April 20, 2020, the Court issued an order in
which it noted several deficiencies in plaintiff’s complaint. (Docket No. 4). Chief among those
deficiencies was plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against any of the named defendants.
Specifically, the “Statement of Claim” section in plaintiff’s complaint consisted of nothing more
than each defendant’s name, and her conclusions as to what that particular defendant did, or what
particular law that defendant had violated. Such vague and conclusory pleading was insufficient
to demonstrate that plaintiff had “a claim to relief that [was] plausible on its face.” See Bell Atlantic
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
The Court advised plaintiff that her complaint was subject to dismissal. However, because
plaintiff was self-represented, the Court gave her an opportunity to file an amended complaint. To
aid her in compliance, the Court had the Clerk of Court mail her a copy of the Court’s employment
discrimination form. The Court’s order also provided instructions on completing an amended
complaint. Plaintiff was given twenty-one days in which to comply. She was advised that the
failure to submit an amended complaint in that timeframe would result in the dismissal of this
action without prejudice and without further notice.
Discussion
As explained above, the Court reviewed plaintiff’s pro se complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2), and determined that it was subject to dismissal. Rather than dismissing outright,
however, the Court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within twenty-one days. The
amended complaint was due by May 11, 2020. That deadline has expired. Despite having been
given more than twenty-one days in which to comply, plaintiff has not submitted an amended
complaint, as directed. Moreover, plaintiff has not filed a motion requesting an extension of time
in which to comply. Indeed, since the Court’s order of April 20, 2020, there have been no further
filings of any nature with the Court. As a result, this action is dismissed for failure to comply with
the Court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and 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).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b). A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Dated this 4 day of June, 2020.
=>
Nasboad [dy
~ HENRYEDWARD AUTREY ———™
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE