stating that district court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s action for failure to comply with a court order on its own initiative
How later courts described this case
- stating that district court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s action for failure to comply with a court order on its own initiative
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHARL FITZGERALD HOWARD, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:20 CV 734 RWS
)
UNKNOWN HOGAN, et al., )
)
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On February 23, 2021, Plaintiff
Howard was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Docket No. 6). Howard has
failed to comply with this order. Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, this action will be
dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Background
Howard is a self-represented litigant who is currently incarcerated at the St. Louis City
Justice Center (SLCJC) in St. Louis, Missouri. On June 4, 2020, he filed a civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming Judge Hogan, the Missouri State Public Defender’s Office,
Lieutenant Fawkes, and Lieutenant Turner as defendants. (Docket No.1). Lieutenants Fawkes and
Turner were sued in their official capacities only. Howard also filed a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Docket No. 3).
In his complaint, Howard alleged that Judge Hogan improperly denied him bail, and that
the Missouri State Public Defender’s Office had been deficient in its representation. Howard also
accused Lieutenant Fawkes and Lieutenant Turner of wrongly placing him in administrative
segregation while at the SLCJC.
On February 23, 2021, the Court granted Howard’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Docket No. 6). Because Howard was proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court reviewed
his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on that review, the Court dismissed his claims
against Judge Hogan and the Missouri State Public Defender’s Office. (Docket No. 7). The Court
also determined that Howard’s claims against Lieutenant Fawkes and Lieutenant Turner were
subject to dismissal. Specifically, Lieutenants Fawkes and Turner had been sued in their official
capacities only, but Howard had not demonstrated the liability of St. Louis City, their employer.
Rather than dismissing Lieutenant Fawkes and Lieutenant Turner outright, Howard was
ordered to file an amended complaint against those two defendants only. He was given directions
about filing an amended complaint, and a copy of the Court’s prisoner civil rights form was sent
to him. Howard was given thirty days within which to comply. The Court advised him that if he
failed to file an amended complaint, this action would be dismissed without prejudice and without
further notice.
Discussion
As noted above, on February 23, 2021, the Court ordered Howard to file an amended
complaint within thirty days. Howard 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 25, 2021.
The deadline for Howard to file his amended complaint has expired. In fact, the Court has
given him more than thirty days to respond. Nonetheless, he 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.
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 vy. 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 Howard has not complied with the Court’s order of February 23, 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 23, 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.
A ‘
RODNAY W. SIPPED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 19th day of April, 2021.