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
NORTHERN DIVISION
AFFAN SIRAJ ZUHAYR EL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 2:22-CV-22-HEA
)
DUSTIN SNEAD, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of plaintiff’s responses to court orders
directing him to either pay the required filing fee for this action, or file an Application to Proceed
in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. For the following reasons, this action will be
dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff Affan Siraj Zuhayr El, a/k/a Timothy Lamont Blackwell, instituted this civil
action in this United States District Court on April 5, 2022. He did not pay the required filing
fee, nor did he request leave to commence the action without prepayment of such fee. On April
26, 2022, the Honorable John M. Bodenhausen, the United States Magistrate Judge to whom this
case was originally assigned, entered an order directing plaintiff to either pay the required filing
fee, or file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.
Plaintiff’s response was due on May 26, 2022.
Before the deadline, plaintiff submitted a filing in which he challenged the validity of the
Court’s order. (ECF No. 5/filed May 9, 2022). As described in the Court’s May 11, 2022 order,
plaintiff identified himself as a Moor, and expressed his belief that he was exempt from the
requirement to pay a filing fee or provide information about his assets in support of a request for
leave to proceed without prepayment of such fee. He averred he had no “gold or silver coins” to
pay the “restricting demands, conditionally commanded by Employees and Contractors of the
Court.” Id. at 3. He described the April 26, 2022 order as “an instrument to deny me due
process of law and my right to free access to the courts.” Id. One page of the filing was
addressed to the Chief Judge of this United States District Court. On that page, plaintiff wrote:
WARNING: You are in violation of Federal Law. Persisting with violating my
Liberties with unconstitutional demands will lead to your personal liability, as
well as the company, agency and/or association, you are operating through.
You are advised to cease and desist your untoward actions and demands, which
are in violation of the People’s Personal Liberties. You are also advised to seek
personal lawful counsel if you do not understand the law, so that you may govern
yourself accordingly.
Id. at 5 (emphases in original). In his May 11, 2022 order, Judge Bodenhausen noted that
plaintiff’s filing did not constitute compliance with the April 26, 2022 order, advised plaintiff he
remained obligated to comply by the original deadline, and directed him to do so. The order
cautioned plaintiff that his failure to comply would result in the dismissal of his case.1
In response, plaintiff submitted a filing in which he again clearly communicates his
unwillingness to comply with the Court’s orders. The filing bears a heading identifying the
Moorish Science Temple of America, and is titled “Writ ‘In Forma Pauperis’ Aberment of
Jurisdiction – Quo Warranto.” (ECF No. 7 at 1). Plaintiff begins by writing: “Greetings Public
Officials, You are in violation of the following: Amendment V “No Person shall be deprived of
Due Process of Law”, and violation of Stare Decisis: No Filing Fee; Crandall v. State of
Nevada 73 U.S. 35 (1867) . . .”. Id. Throughout the document, plaintiff expresses his belief that
1 On that same date, plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against Judge Bodenhausen and the Clerk of this Court,
alleging violations of his rights in conjunction with this matter. See Zuhayr El v. Bodenhausen, et al., No.
4:22-CV-520-SEP (E.D. Mo. May 11, 2022).
he has the right to unfettered free access to the courts, accuses Judge Bodenhausen and the Clerk
of this Court of violating his rights, and offers other such averments.
Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s April 26, 2022 or May 11, 2022 orders.
Instead, he has clearly communicated his refusal to comply. Despite plaintiff’s contentions,
nothing exempts him from being required to pay a filing fee to institute this action, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914, or from being required to submit an affidavit including a statement of all of his assets
when requesting leave to institute the action without prepayment of such fee. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1). Plaintiff is also subject to this Court’s Local Rule requiring the submission of a
statement of financial information on a court-provided form when requesting leave to institute a
civil action without prepayment of the filing fee. See E.D.Mo. L.R. 2.05(A).
The situation presently before the Court is one in which plaintiff has willfully refused to
comply with the Court’s April 26, 2022 and May 11, 2022 orders. It is clear that plaintiff would
continue to refuse to comply with future court orders, instead of prosecuting his case in a serious
manner. Therefore, the Court will dismiss this case at this time pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 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 action is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 41(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A separate order of dismissal will be entered
herewith.
Dated this 28 day of June, 2022.
Ae EDWARD (lob
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE