# Engel v. CO1

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · March 2, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10234567

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** March 2, 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/10234567

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that district court may dismiss a self-represented 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

JOSEPH MICHAEL DEVON ENGEL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:20-CV-1919 AGF
)
CO1, et al., )
)
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On January 29, 2021, the Court
directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within twenty-one days. ECF No. 2. 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, who identifies himself as a sovereign citizen, is a self-represented litigant who
filed this civil action on December 21, 2020. Plaintiff’s complaint was handwritten on two pages
of notebook paper and named the following defendants in their official and individual capacities:
CO1; CO2; Sg. Wells; LT; Captain; Corporal; Caseworker; Caseworker; FUM; CCA; Assist
Superintendent; Superintendent; Assist Warden; Warden; IPO ERDCC; Director P&P; Assist
Director P&P; Assist Att General; Att General; MODOC; ERDCC; LT Governor; and Governor.
The complaint was one of more than one hundred and thirty (130) civil rights actions that plaintiff
filed in this Court since September of 2020.
Plaintiff alleged his claims in their entirety as follows:
This is the meal loaf they keep giving me[.] [T]hey know something is serious[ly]
wrong with me. Dr. Ferguson told them not to give me nomore [sic] of that meal
loaf[.] [T]hey do. I can’t do it[.] [I]t’s killing me. I [am] puking blood [and] shitting
blood. Don’t feel good at all. [T]hese things been sitting in the frezzer [sic] for
months no good. They smell and look like dog food. Discolored. Not right for
human consump[tion].

ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff provided no additional facts and did not indicate the relationship between
the defendants and his statement of the claim.
On January 29, 2021, the Court directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint. ECF No.
2. In so doing, the Court noted plaintiff’s complaint was subject to dismissal because he did not
explain how his rights were violated, who purportedly violated his rights, and how the named
defendants were directly involved in or personally responsible for the meals he received during
incarceration or that they were aware of any dangers to his health as a result of the food. Plaintiff
was given twenty-one days in which to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff was also directed to
either file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on a Court-provided form or pay the full $402
filing fee. He was advised that failure to respond would result in the dismissal of this action without
prejudice and without further notice.
Discussion
As stated above, on January 29, 2021, the Court ordered plaintiff to file an amended
complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis within twenty-one days. The filings were due
on February 19, 2021. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis as directed. Plaintiff did not pay the Court’s filing fee. Further, he has not filed 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). See also Brown v.
Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (stating that district court may dismiss a self-represented
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 January 29, 2021, or filed any 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 January 29, 2021. 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 2nd day of March, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10234567. Public record. Not legal advice.