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
LEONTAYE L. COMBS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:21-cv-407-DDN
)
JOHN HAYDEN, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff, an inmate at the
Jefferson City Correctional Center, initiated this case on April 7, 2021 by filing a civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against St. Louis Metropolitan Police Chief John Hayden,
police officer Glennon Frigerio, and “Entire St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department.” He also
filed a motion leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court granted the motion and assessed an
initial partial filing fee, and reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
On July 13, 2021, the Court entered an order in which it determined the complaint was
subject to dismissal because, inter alia, plaintiff failed to allege that any named defendant was
directly involved in or personally responsible for causing harm, and his allegations failed to state
a claim of constitutional dimension. The Court directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint to
cure the defects. In so doing, the Court clearly explained why the complaint was subject to
dismissal, gave 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 prejudice and without further notice.
Plaintiff’s response was due to the Court on August 12, 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 at this time, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with
this Court’s July 13, 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). This dismissal will not count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g).
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 27th day of August, 2021.
/s/ Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE