a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order
How later courts described this case
- a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHARLES HAMPTON, JR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:21-CV-253-NAB
)
MECC, )
)
Defendant. )
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. On March 5, 2021, the Court ordered
plaintiff to file an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days. ECF No. 3. 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).
Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who is currently incarcerated at the Missouri Eastern
Correctional Center (“MECC”) in Pacific, Missouri. Plaintiff initiated this case on February 22,
2021 by filing a two-page handwritten letter, which he stated was “in regard[] to the safety and
security of the inmates of the Dept. of Corrections.” ECF No. 1. Although it is not clear from the
letter who Plaintiff wished to sue, it appears he intended for the MECC to be the sole defendant as
he failed to identify any specific individuals who allegedly violated his constitutional rights.
Within the letter, plaintiff stated that MECC employees would “sit back and laugh[] at
people being attacked” and place inmates in administrative segregation “where the heat doesn’t
work.” Plaintiff further complained the MECC consisted of “90% Black inmates” who “openly
masturbate to all the [correctional officers] and act like pred[a]tors” by “extort[ing] the white
guys[.]” Plaintiff asserted he did not have the funds to file a lawsuit but did not submit a separate
motion for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee.
On March 5, 2021, the Court entered an Order directing plaintiff to file an amended
complaint on a Court-provided form, and to either pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. In the Order, the Court clearly explained that his February 22nd letter
was defective as a complaint commencing a civil action, provided plaintiff clear instructions about
how to prepare the amended complaint, and cautioned him that his failure to timely comply with
the Order would result in the dismissal of his case without further notice.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis was due to the
Court on March 26, 2021. To date, however, he has neither complied with the Court’s Order, nor
sought additional time to do so. The Court gave plaintiff meaningful notice of what was expected,
cautioned him that his case would be dismissed if he failed to timely comply, and gave him
additional time to comply. Therefore, this action will be dismissed without prejudice due to
plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Court’s March 5, 2021 Order and his failure to prosecute his
case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (a
district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court
order); Dudley v. Miles, 597 F. App’x 392 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal
without prejudice where pro se plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint despite being
cautioned that dismissal could result from failure to do so).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED than an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 21“ day of April, 2021.
HENEY EDWARD Zs REY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE