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
ANGELA NAILS, ) ,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 4:20-cv-01331-JAR
AAA AUTO INSURANCE,
Defendant. □
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On March 8, 2021, the □□□□□
directed plaintiff to file a second amended complaint within thirty days. (Docket No. 6). 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 against AAA Anto Insurance
on September 23, 2020. (Docket No. 1). She also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Docket No. 2).
On December 4, 2020, the Court granted plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Docket No. 4). Because she was proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court reviewed her
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on that review, the Court determined that her
complaint was subject to dismissal. In particular, the Court noted that plaintiff had named □□□□
Auto Insurance as the defendant, but made factual allegations against Progressive Insurance
instead. The Court also explained that the complaint was deficient because it was not on a Court-
provided form, because it did not adequately assert the Court’s jurisdiction, and because it failed
to state.a claim. Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint, which she submitted on
January 4, 2021. (Docket No. 5).
In the amended complaint, plaintiff again named AAA Auto Insurance as the defendant.
The allegations stemmed from an automobile accident in which plaintiff was insured by AAA
Auto Insurance, while the driver who struck her was insured by Progressive. According to plaintiff,
AAA Auto Insurance had some sort of “statement” showing that the driver who struck her “did
not see” plaintiff's vehicle, but “hid” this ee from her ‘until 2020. This allegedly kept
plaintiff from pursuing a claim against Progressive.
Once again, the Court reviewed plaintiff's complaint and determined that it was subject to
dismissal. (Docket No. 6). Specifically, the Court noted that plaintiff had not presented any facts
establishing that AAA Auto Insurance was liable for any misconduct. To be sure, she concluded
that AAA Auto Insurance wrongfully “hid” a statement from her. However, plaintiff mromiced no
factual support to the effect that AAA Auto Insurance had a responsibility to provide this
statement, that their withholding of the statement was wrongful, or that their actions actually
prevented her from pursuing a claim against Progressive. ©
Rather than dismissing outright, the Court gave plaintiff the opportunity to file a second
amended complaint. The Court’s order included instructions on how to do so. Plaintiff was also
sent a copy of the Court’s civil complaint form. She was given thirty days in which to comply. The
Court advised plaintiff that the failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this action without
prejudice and without further notice.
Discussion
As noted above, on March 8, 2021, the Court ordered plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint within thirty days. She was advised that the failure to comply would result in the
dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice. The second amended
complaint was due on.or before April 7, 2021.
The deadline for plaintiff to file her second 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 a second amended complaint. She 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 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 March 8, 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 March 8, 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 HE C Gori 2021.
. JOH J ROSS
UNIFED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3