stating that liability may attach against a governmental entity if the constitutional violation “resulted from (1) an official municipal policy, (2) an unofficial custom, or (3) a deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise”
How later courts described this case
- stating that liability may attach against a governmental entity if the constitutional violation “resulted from (1) an official municipal policy, (2) an unofficial custom, or (3) a deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise”
- stating that “departments or subdivisions” of local government are not “juridical entities suable as such”
- 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
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
EDDIE R. TAYLOR, JR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:20-cv-00011-SNLJ
)
PEMISCOT COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, )
)
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On June 23, 2020, the Court ordered
plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Docket No. 5). 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 self-represented litigant currently incarcerated at the Ozark Correctional
Center in Fordland, Missouri. On January 13, 2020, he filed a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, naming the Pemiscot County Justice Center as the sole defendant. (Docket No. 1). Plaintiff
also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket No. 2). In the complaint,
plaintiff alleged that the Pemiscot County Justice Center failed to protect him from an assault by
other inmates. As a result of this incident, plaintiff sought $250,000 in damages.
On June 23, 2020, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Docket No. 5). The Court also reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915. In so doing, the Court determined that plaintiff’s complaint was subject to dismissal.
Specifically, the Court noted that the Pemiscot County Justice Center was not a legal entity
amenable to suit. See Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992)
(stating that “departments or subdivisions” of local government are not “juridical entities suable
as such”). Furthermore, even if Pemiscot County was substituted as the proper defendant,
plaintiff’s allegations failed to state a valid municipal liability claim against it. See Mick v. Raines,
883 F.3d 1075, 1079 (8th Cir. 2018) (stating that liability may attach against a governmental entity
if the constitutional violation “resulted from (1) an official municipal policy, (2) an unofficial
custom, or (3) a deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise”).
Rather than dismissing the complaint outright, the Court directed plaintiff to file an
amended complaint. The Court’s order contained instructions on the drafting of an amended
complaint, and the Clerk of Court was directed to send plaintiff a prisoner civil rights complaint
form. Plaintiff was given thirty days in which to comply, and advised that his failure to comply
would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice.
Discussion
As noted above, on June 23, 2020, the Court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint
within thirty days. The amended complaint was due by July 24, 2020. In the order, plaintiff was
advised that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in the dismissal of this action
without prejudice and without further notice.
The deadline for plaintiff to file his amended complaint has expired. In fact, the Court has
given plaintiff substantially more than thirty days in which to respond. Nonetheless, plaintiff has
failed to file an amended complaint as directed. He has also failed to file a motion with the Court
seeking an extension of time in which to comply. Indeed, since the filing of his certified inmate
account statement, the Court has had no further communications from plaintiff whatsoever.
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 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 June 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 June 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_5_t_h_ day of __A_u_g_u_s_t_______, 2020.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE