# Robinson v. Unknown

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · March 14, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10236697

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** March 14, 2022
- **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/10236697

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) dismissal for failure to comply with court order, where plaintiff failed to follow order to file an amended complaint, “[d]espite warnings that dismissal could result from his failure to do so”
- stating that district court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s action for failure to comply with a court order on its own initiative

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER L. ROBINSON, )
Plaintiff,
V. No. 1:21-cv-00155-SNLJ
STEPHANIE UNKNOWN, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On January 25, 2022, the Court
ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (Docket No. 6). He was given thirty days in which
to comply. More than thirty days have elapsed, and plaintiff has not submitted anything to the
Court. Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss this action without
prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Background
Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who is currently incarcerated at the Northeast
Correctional Center in Bowling Green, Missouri. On October 25, 2021, he filed a civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming Nurse Stephanie Unknown, COII Mike McMeans, Jail
Administrator Mike Jones, Dr. John Montgomery, and the Butler County Justice Center as
defendants. (Docket No. 1). The complaint alleged deliberate indifference to plaintiff's medical
needs while he was an inmate at the Butler County Justice Center.
Along with the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Docket No. 2). On January 25, 2022, the Court granted the motion and assessed an initial partial
filing fee. (Docket No. 6). Because he was proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court reviewed his

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on that review, the Court determined that plaintiff's
complaint was deficient and subject to dismissal. Rather than dismissing, however, the Court
directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint, and provided instructions on how to do so. He was
given thirty days in which to comply, and advised that his failure to comply would result in the
dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice.
Discussion
On January 25, 2022, the Court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint. His
response was due by February 24, 2022. The deadline for the submission of plaintiff's amended
complaint has expired. Indeed, he has been given more than thirty days in which to comply.
Despite the additional time, he has not submitted an amended complaint, nor requested an
extension.
As noted above, plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty days, and
warned that his case would be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice if he did not
comply. “In general, pro se representation does not excuse a party from complying with a court’s
orders and with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Ackra Direct Marketing Corp. v. Fingerhut
Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8 Cir. 1996). To that end, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure “provides that a court may dismiss a case for failure to comply with court orders.” /n re
Reid, 197 F.3d 318, 320 (8" Cir. 1999). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and Brown v. Frey, 806
F.2d 801, 803 (8"" 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 January 25, 2022, and has not sought an extension of time in which to comply,
the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. See Dudley v. Miles, 597 Fed. Appx. 392 (8"
Cir. 2015) (affirming district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) dismissal for failure to comply with

court order, where plaintiff failed to follow order to file an amended complaint, “[d]espite warnings
that dismissal could result from his failure to do so”).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure
to comply with the Court’s order of January 25, 2022. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A separate order
of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 144 frday of flare 2022.

tu D Lest . Lf
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10236697. Public record. Not legal advice.