# Harper v. Transportation Officer (Driver)

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · September 3, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10233684

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** September 3, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10233684

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that district court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s action for failure to comply with a court order on its own initiative

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JUSTIN J. HARPER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:20-cv-00660-SRC
)
TRANSPORTATION OFFICER )
(DRIVER), et al., )
)
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On May 20, 2020, the Court ordered
plaintiff to either file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within
thirty days. (Docket No. 3). Plaintiff has not complied. Therefore, for the reasons discussed below,
this action will be dismissed.
Discussion
Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant currently incarcerated at the Phelps County Jail in
Rolla, Missouri. On May 18, 2020, he filed a civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket
No. 1). The complaint named as defendants two officers who had transported plaintiff from the
Phelps County Jail to the federal courthouse in St. Louis. Plaintiff did not file a motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, and he did not pay the required filing fee.
On May 20, 2020, the Court directed plaintiff to either file a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. (Docket No. 3). If plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, he was further instructed to submit a copy of his certified inmate
account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.
Plaintiff was given thirty days in which to comply. The Court advised plaintiff that if he failed to
comply, his case would be dismissed without prejudice and without further warning.
Plaintiff was required to either file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay
the filing fee by June 19, 2020. That deadline has expired. In fact, the Court has given plaintiff
substantially more than thirty days in which to respond. Nonetheless, plaintiff has failed to file a
motion for leave to proceed in forma paupers or pay the filing fee. 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 complaint, 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 (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 May 20, 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 May 20, 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 3rd day of September, 2020.
ets CAGE
STEPHENR.CLARK— —i—is—s
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10233684. Public record. Not legal advice.