Opinion

Bryant v. M.D.O.C.

Court
District Court, E.D. Missouri
Filed
Aug 17, 2022
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.2%

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

J.C. BRYANT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 4:22-CV-660 HEA

)

M.D.O.C., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. On June 16, 2022, self-represented

plaintiff submitted a sixty-five page Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

ECF No. 1. Plaintiff drafted his statement of claim on approximately thirty-six pages of notebook

paper asserting various claims against twenty-seven defendants in their official and individual

capacities. The Court received the filing on July 21, 2022 accompanied by an application to

proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs, ECF No. 2, and a motion for appointment

of counsel, ECF No. 3.

On June 29, 2022, the Court reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915,

granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and denied his request for appointed counsel.

ECF No. 4. The Court determined the complaint was subject to dismissal because the claims

brought against the defendants did not arise out of the same transactions or occurrences, and did

not share a question of law or fact common to all of the named defendants. In addition to the

joinder issue, the Court explained that the complaint was defective because plaintiff failed to

comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), which requires a short and plain statement of claims. In

consideration of plaintiff’s self-represented status, the Court directed him to file an amended

complaint to cure his pleading deficiencies. Plaintiff was mailed the appropriate Court-form and

provided specific instructions on how to submit his amendment. He was warned that his failure to

timely comply would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further

notice. Plaintiff had until July 29, 2022 to file an amended complaint.

On July 1, 2022, the Court received a letter addressed to the Clerk of Court, dated June 24,

2022, asserting “the chief clerk, the deputy clerks and judges are aiding and abetting the

corporation of Mo. by not moving quickly[.]”ECF No. 6. He explained he did not submit an inmate

account statement because the “ERDCC takes the federal enclave court of Eastern Mo. as a joke.”

Plaintiff also asserted that paying a filing fee for initiating this case is violative of the State and

Federal Constitutions because he “never consciously went into any contracts with Mo. or U.S. of

A.” On the same date, plaintiff filed a second motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 5. On

July 7, 2022, the Court denied his second motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice.

To date, plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s June 29, 2022 Memorandum and Order,

nor sought additional time to do so. The Court gave plaintiff meaningful notice of what was

expected, provided detailed instructions on how to file an amended complaint, cautioned him that

his case would be dismissed if he failed to timely comply, and gave him additional time. Therefore,

this action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Order and

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 self-represented plaintiff failed to file an amended

complaint despite being cautioned that dismissal could result from failure to do so). This dismissal

2

will not count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A

separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in

good faith.

Dated this 17, day of August, 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.