# Luh v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Department

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10234786

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** April 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/10234786

## 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

TODD J. LUH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:20-cv-01513-HEA
)
JEFFERSON COUNTY )
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., )
)
)
Defendants. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On February 5, 2021, the Court
ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Docket No. 4). 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 who filed a civil action on October 16, 2020, naming
the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, the Missouri Highway Patrol, and the State of Missouri
as defendants. (Docket No. 1). In the complaint, plaintiff contended that the Missouri sex offender
registry was an “inaccurate portrayal of the circumstances of his arrest.” (Docket No. 1 at 7). He
further alleged that the requirement that he be physically present at the Sheriff’s Office was
unconstitutional. Plaintiff also objected to the Missouri Highway Patrol collecting a sample of his
DNA. (Docket No. 1-1 at 1). As a result, plaintiff sought an injunction to prohibit the collection of
his DNA until he was able to make an in-person argument before the Court. (Docket No. 1 at 7).
Along with the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket
No. 2).
On February 5, 2021, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Docket No. 4). Because plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court reviewed
his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on that review, the Court determined that

plaintiff’s case was subject to dismissal. (Docket No. 4 at 4). In particular, plaintiff had not
provided a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that” he was entitled to relief, as
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Rather than dismissing outright, the Court gave plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended
complaint. He was sent a copy of the Court’s civil rights form, and was given instructions in the
order on how to fill it out. Plaintiff was given thirty days to comply. The Court advised him that
the failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without
further notice. (Docket No. 4 at 6).
Discussion

As noted above, on February 5, 2021, the Court ordered plaintiff to file an amended
complaint within thirty days. 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
amended complaint was due on or before March 8, 2021.
The deadline for plaintiff to file his amended complaint has expired. In fact, the Court has
given plaintiff 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 the 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 February 5, 2021, 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 February 5, 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 1“ day of April, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10234786. Public record. Not legal advice.