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
AFFAN SIRAJ ZUHAYR EL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:22-CV-151-RLW
)
STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of plaintiff’s response to the Court Order dated
June 24, 2022, that directed him to either file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or
to pay the entire filing fee. See ECF No. 4. 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, filed this civil action in
this United States District Court on February 8, 2022. He did not pay the required filing fee or file
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court ordered plaintiff to do one or the other and sent
him a copy to the Court’s form motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In response, plaintiff
submitted a filing titled “Notice of Judges and Officials’ Oath—Bound Obligations and Fiduciary
Duties,” which fails to comply with the Court’s order.
In plaintiff’s notice to the Court, he identifies himself as a Moorish American and states
his belief that he is 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 states he
had no “gold or silver coins” to pay the “restricting demands, conditionally commanded by
Employees and Contractors of the Court.” Id. at 2. He describes the June 24, 2022 order as “an
instrument to deny me due process of law and my right to free access to the courts.” Id. He then
disparages the Court by suggesting that “access to the court, which is a Constitutional Right, is for
sale.” Id. at 3. He states that if the Court refuses to allow him to proceed based on his “Affidavit
of Financial Statement,” it is committing “[p]erjury of [o]ath” and he threatens to sue the Court.
Id.
Plaintiff has filed similar documents in other cases before this Court. In both Zuhayr-el v.
Snead, No. 2:22-CV-22-HEA (E.D. Mo. filed Apr. 5, 2022) and Zuhayr El v. Bodenhausen, No.
4:22-CV-520-RWS (E.D. Mo. filed May 11, 2022), the Court dismissed plaintiff’s civil cases for
willfully refusing to comply with the Court’s orders. See Snead at ECF 9; Bodenhausen at ECF 9.
These dismissals were entered after the Court ordered plaintiff to either pay the $402 filing fee or
file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. In both cases, plaintiff responded with filings indicating
his belief that his status as a Moorish American exempts him from paying the filing fee or filing a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. In Snead, the Court told plaintiff specifically that his filing
in response to the Court’s order did not constitute compliance with the Court’s order. Snead at
ECF No. 6 (filed May 11, 2022).
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 that requires 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).
Like the situations presented in Snead and Bodenhausen, plaintiff has willfully refused to
comply with the Court’s June 24, 2022 order. Based upon his actions before this Court, 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 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.
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 17th day of August, 2022.