a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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
BRIAN MICHAEL DAVIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:21-CV-1135-JAR
)
FRANKLIN COUNTY JAIL, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff, an inmate at the Franklin
County Detention Center, initiated this civil action on September 20, 2021 by filing a Prisoner
Civil Rights Complaint Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Franklin County Jail, and a doctor.
He filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court granted the motion and
reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and determined that it was defective
and subject to dismissal. On December 9, 2021, the Court entered an order giving plaintiff the
opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the defects. In that order, 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 January 9, 2022. 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 significant additional time to comply.
Therefore, this action will be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to comply
with this Court’s December 9, 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 plaintiffs 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 case 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 31“ day of January, 2022.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE