# Woods v. United States

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · May 13, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10235033

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** May 13, 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/10235033

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RODNEY WOODS, )
Movant,
v. No. 4:20-cv-1870-JAR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Movant Rodney Woods initiated
this action on December 23, 2020 by filing a document that appeared to constitute an attempt to
file a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. However, he
did not use the proper form as required by the Local Rules of this Court, and important
information was omitted. Movant also failed to sign the document.
On February 17, 2021, the Court entered an order directing movant to file an amended
and signed motion on the proper form, and on March 17, 2021, the Court sua sponte gave
movant additional time, to and including April 19, 2021, to comply with the February 17, 2021
order. In both orders, the Court cautioned movant that his failure to timely comply could result in
the dismissal of this action without further notice.
Movant’s response was due to the Court on April 19, 2021. To date, however, he has
neither complied with the Court’s orders, nor sought additional time to do so. The Court gave
movant meaningful notice of what was expected, cautioned him that his case could be dismissed
if he failed to timely comply, and gave him significant additional time to comply. Therefore, this
action will be dismissed due to movant’s failure to comply with this Court’s February 17, 2021

and March 17, 2021 orders, 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 movant’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
movant 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 FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 5)
is DENIED as moot.
Dated this 13"" day of May, 2021.
pe AN ke
JO NAR OSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10235033. Public record. Not legal advice.