“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”
How later courts described this case
- “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”
- 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”
- stating that district court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s action for failure to comply with a court order on its own initiative
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:22-cv-00030-SNLJ
)
JOE ROSS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On June 14, 2022, the Court ordered
plaintiff Robert Brown to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Docket No. 6). He was
advised that his failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and
without further notice. More than thirty days have elapsed, and plaintiff has not responded.
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 Eastern Reception,
Diagnostic, and Correctional Center in Bonne Terre, Missouri. On March 16, 2022, he filed a
prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming Jail Administrator Joe Ross and
Nurse Amy Ross as defendants. (Docket No. 1). In the complaint, plaintiff alleged deliberate
indifference with regard to a cut on his finger, as well as excessive force stemming from an incident
in which he was tasered.
Along with the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Docket No. 2). On June 14, 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 also reviewed
plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on that review, the Court determined that the
complaint was deficient and subject to dismissal. Rather than dismissing, however, the Court
directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint, and included directions on how to do so. The Court
gave plaintiff thirty days in which to comply, and advised him that the failure to comply would
result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice.
Discussion
As set forth above, the Court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint on June 14,
2022. He was given thirty days to respond, and warned that a failure to submit an amended
complaint would result in the dismissal of this action. The amended complaint was due on or before
July 14, 2022. The deadline for plaintiff to file his 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 filed an amended complaint, nor sought an extension of time in which to do
so.
Even though he is a self-represented litigant, plaintiff must still comply with the Court’s
orders and with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ackra Direct Marketing Corp. v.
Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 1996) (“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”). 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 rule applies to self-
represented litigants. See Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th 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 June 14, 2022 order to submit an
amended complaint, and because he 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 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 June 14, 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 July, 2022.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE