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
DUSTIN SEALS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:21-CV-1468-NAB
)
D. MARSHAIK, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. For the reasons explained below,
this action will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The background of this case is fully set forth in the Court’s January 14, 2022 order, but
the Court recites the essential facts here. Plaintiff, a prisoner, initiated this civil action along
with nine other inmates, all of whom were inmates at the Jefferson County Detention Center.
See Barnett, et al. v. Marshaik, et al., No. 4:21-CV-907-RWS. The complaint alleged that the
plaintiffs’ civil rights were violated when they witnessed the suicide of a fellow inmate. Plaintiff
did not sign the complaint, nor did he pay the filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed
without prepayment of such fee. On December 14, 2021, this Court severed nine plaintiffs from
the originating action, and opened new civil actions for each one. The case at bar is one of those
actions.
Upon initial review, the Court determined the complaint was defective and subject to
dismissal because, inter alia, plaintiff did not sign the complaint and did not pay the filing fee or
file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On January 14, 2022, the Court entered an
order directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint to set forth his own claims for relief, and to
also either pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In so doing, the Court
fully explained why the complaint was subject to dismissal, gave plaintiff clear instructions
about what was expected, and cautioned him that, if he failed to timely comply with the order,
the Court would dismiss this case without further notice.
Plaintiff's response was due to the Court on February 14, 2022. On February 18, 2022,
mail the Court sent to plaintiff was returned as undeliverable, and the Court obtained plaintiffs
new address and re-sent the January 14, 2022 Memorandum and Order to plaintiff at his new
address. However, to date, plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order or sought additional
time to do so, nor has he filed anything in this case.
Plaintiff was given meaningful notice of what was expected, and cautioned that his case
would be dismissed if he failed to timely comply. Therefore, this action will be dismissed
without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court’s January 14, 2022 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).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
Dated this 11™ day of March, 2022.
mi eel —
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE