Manuel v. Hanning

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

ZAHMEEN Z.W. MANUEL, )

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:21-cv-01428-JAR

OFFICER UNKNOWN HANNING, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On March 8, 2022, the Court

ordered plaintiff Zahmeen Z.W. Manuel to file a show cause response and an amended complaint

within thirty days. (Docket No. 8). Plaintiff was advised that his failure to submit a show cause

response and an amended complaint would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice

and without further notice. More than thirty days have elapsed and plaintiff has not complied.

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 St. Louis County

Justice Center in Clayton, Missouri. On December 6, 2021, he filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

naming Officer Hanning, Lieutenant Rolland, and Captain McClelland as defendants. (Docket No.

1). In the complaint, he accused defendants of excessive force. He also filed a motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket No. 2).

On February 17, 2022, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and reviewed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Docket No. 5). Based on that

review, the Court dismissed the claim against Officer Hanning without prejudice, as well as the

official capacity claims against Lieutenant Rolland and Captain McClellan. (Docket No. 6). As to

the individual capacity claims against Lieutenant Rolland and Captain McClelland, plaintiff was

ordered to file an amended complaint regarding his claims of excessive force. (Docket No. 5). He

was sent a copy of the Court’s prisoner civil rights complaint form, and given thirty days in which

to comply.

On February 28, 2022, the Court received a letter from plaintiff that was construed as a

motion to voluntarily dismiss his case. (Docket No. 7). The motion provided, in whole: “I concede

this suit because it is too difficult for me to understand. Thank you for your time [and]

consideration. Neither can I afford it.”

In response to this motion, and out of an abundance of caution, the Court entered an order

directing plaintiff to show cause within thirty days as to why his case should not be dismissed

without prejudice. (Docket No. 8). He was also re-ordered to file his amended complaint within

thirty days, as previously directed. In its order, the Court noted that with regard to plaintiff's

contention that he could not “afford” this case, he had already been granted in forma pauperis

status. As to his assertion that the uit “is too difficult for [him] to understand,” the Court observed

that plaintiff had already demonstrated an ability to adequately present his claims. In addition, the

Court pointed out that he had been sent a copy of the Court’s prisoner civil rights complaint form

to aid him in filing an amended complaint.

To aid plaintiff's compliance, he was sent a copy of the Court’s February 17, 2022 order,

along with another copy of the Court’s prisoner civil rights complaint form. He was advised that

he had thirty days to respond, and that a failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this

action without prejudice and without further notice.

Discussion

As previously noted, on March 8, 2022, the Court directed plaintiff to show cause within

thirty days as to why his case should not be dismissed without prejudice. He was also ordered to

submit an amended complaint. Plaintiff's responses were due on or before April 7, 2022. In its

order, the Court warned plaintiff that his failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this

action without prejudice and without further notice.

The deadline for plaintiff to file his show cause response and amended complaint has

expired. Indeed, the Court has given plaintiff more than thirty days in which to comply. Despite

being given additional time, plaintiff has not submitted his show cause response or an amended

complaint, nor has he sought an extension of time in which to do so.

“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). Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

an action may be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). This

tule applies to self-represented litigants. See 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 March 8, 2022 order to submit a show

cause response and an amended complaint, and has not sought an extension of time in which to

comply, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. See Dudley y. Miles, 597 Fed. Appx.

392 (8" Cir. 2015) (affirming district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) dismissal for failure to comply

with a court order, where plaintiff failed to follow an 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 March 8, 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 29" day of April, 2022.

howe

UNFTED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE