# Moore v. AccessSecurePak

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · February 1, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10234388

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** February 1, 2021
- **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/10234388

## 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

KENNETH MOORE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:20-cv-01638-HEA
)
ACCESS SECURE PAK, )
)
Defendant. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On November 23, 2020, the Court
directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (Docket No. 2). The Court also ordered plaintiff
to either file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the required filing fee. Plaintiff
was given thirty days in which to respond, but has failed to comply with either directive. 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 who is currently incarcerated at the California Men’s
Colony State Prison in San Luis Obispo, California. On November 19, 2020, he filed a document
with the Court that was construed as a prisoner civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(Docket No. 1). The complaint was not on a Court form, as required. Plaintiff also did not pay the
required filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
On November 23, 2020, the Court directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint on a
Court form, which was provided to him. (Docket No. 2). Plaintiff was further directed to either file
a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the $400 filing fee. He was given thirty
days in which to comply. The Court advised plaintiff that failure to comply would result in the
dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice.
Discussion
As noted above, on November 23, 2020, the Court ordered plaintiff to file an amended
complaint on a Court form. He was also directed to either submit a motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, or pay the $400 filing fee. He was given thirty days in which to comply. Plaintiff’s
responses were due on or before December 23, 2020. In the order, the Court advised plaintiff that
failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further
notice.
The deadline for plaintiff to file his amended complaint, and to either file a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee, has expired. In fact, the Court has given
plaintiff substantially more than thirty days in which to respond. Nonetheless, plaintiff has failed
to submit an amended complaint, and he has failed to either submit a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee, 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 the complaint,
the Court has had no further communication with 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); and 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 November 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 November 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 1“ day of February, 2021.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10234388. Public record. Not legal advice.