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
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
EDDIE HEAD, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:21-cv-00047-SRC
)
ANNE L. PRECYTHE, )
)
Defendant. )
Memorandum and Order
This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On August 3, 2021, the Court directed
plaintiff to either pay the full filing fee or submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Doc. 2. Plaintiff has failed to respond. Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, this action will
be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b).
Discussion
Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who is currently incarcerated at the Southeast
Correctional Center in Charleston, Missouri. On March 3, 2021, he filed a civil action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming Anne Precythe as the defendant. Doc. 1. Plaintiff did not file a motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee.
On August 3, 2021, the Court ordered plaintiff to either file a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within thirty days. Doc. 2. To aid him, plaintiff was sent a
copy of the Court’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis form. The Court advised plaintiff that
the failure to comply with the order would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice
and without further notice. Plaintiff’s response was due on or before September 2, 2021.
More than thirty days have elapsed and plaintiffs deadline for complying with the Court’s
order has expired. The Court has not received any response from plaintiff. Specifically, plaintiff
has not submitted a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee, or sought an
extension of time. 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 (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 plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order of August
3, 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, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice for failure to comply with
the Court’s order of August 3, 2021. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A separate order of dismissal will
be entered herewith. The Court further orders that the dismissal of this action shall not constitute
a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Lastly, an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
So Ordered this 16th day of September 2021.
oem te We CS
STEPHENR.CLARK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE