# Burgess v. Precythe

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10234563

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** March 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/10234563

## 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

WILLIAM BURGESS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:20 CV 1455 MTS
)
ANNE L. PRECYTHE, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On December 15, 2020, the Court
directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Doc. [10]. Plaintiff was given thirty days in which
to comply, but he has failed to respond. Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will
dismiss this action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Background
Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant incarcerated at the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and
Correctional Center (ERDCC) in Bonne Terre, Missouri. On October 7, 2020, he filed a civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming twenty separate defendants. Doc. [1]. In his complaint,
Plaintiff alleged that his Eighth Amendment right to medical care was being violated by the
ERDCC’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Because Plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court reviewed his complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Following that review, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s
complaint was subject to dismissal because it was not on a Court-provided form; it failed to provide
a short and plain statement of the factual allegations against the named defendants; it failed to
assert the personal responsibility of each of the named defendants; it relied heavily on conclusory
statements and speculation; and it attempted to join unrelated claims. Doc. [10].
Rather than dismiss outright, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on
a Court-provided form. A copy of the form was sent to Plaintiff, along with a copy of the Court’s
order containing instructions on how to properly amend. Plaintiff was given thirty days in which

to comply. The Court advised Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of his
case without prejudice and without further notice.
Discussion
As noted above, on December 15, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint on a Court form. He was given thirty days in which to comply. Plaintiff’s response was
due on or before January 14, 2021. 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 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 as directed. Moreover, he has failed to file a motion with
the Court seeking 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); 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 December 15, 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 December 15, 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 1st day of March, 2021.

MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10234563. Public record. Not legal advice.