# McGee v. Inman

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · December 22, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10236255

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** December 22, 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/10236255

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

KEVIN DOUGLAS MCGEE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:21-CV-1308-NAB
)
JULIE INMAN, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented plaintiff Kevin
Douglas McGee initiated this case on October 12, 2021 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri. ECF No. 1. The case was subsequently transferred to this Court
pursuant to the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ECF No. 3. Plaintiff’s complaint was
drafted on a Western District of Missouri’s form pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against seven
Missouri Department of Mental Health employees. Submitted with the complaint was a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2.
On November 3, 2021, the Court reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and
determined it was subject to dismissal because plaintiff “left blank the space on the form complaint
to state the facts of his claim and describe the conduct he alleges violated his constitutional rights.”
ECF No. 5. The Court directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint to cure his pleading
deficiencies, provided him with clear instructions on how to amend, and mailed him two blank
Civil Rights Complaint forms.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint was due on December 3, 2021. To date, however, he has
neither complied with the Court’s November 3, 2021 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 plaintiffs failure to comply with
the Court’s Order to amend his original complaint 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 self-represented 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 that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 22°4 day of December, 2021.
ed
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10236255. Public record. Not legal advice.