# Harrison v. Hakala

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · August 22, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10237490

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** August 22, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10237490

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KEVIN T. HARRISON, JR., )
Plaintiff,
v. No. 4:22-CV-361-PLC
MICHAEL C. HAKALA, et al.
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff Kevin T. Harrison, Jr., an
inmate at the Jefferson City Correctional Center (“JCCC”), initiated this action by filing a
Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Corizon employees. He also
filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court granted the motion,
reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and determined this action was
subject to dismissal.
On July 8, 2022, the Court entered an order giving plaintiff the opportunity to file an
amended complaint. In that order, the Court clearly explained why this action was subject to
dismissal, gave plaintiff clear instructions about how to prepare the amended complaint, and
cautioned him that his failure to timely file an amended complaint could result in the dismissal of
his case without prejudice and without further notice. The Court also directed plaintiff to pay an
initial partial filing fee.
Plaintiff’s response was due to the Court on August 8, 2022. To date, however, he has
neither filed an amended complaint, nor sought additional time to do so. The Court gave plaintiff
meaningful notice of what was expected, cautioned him that his case would be dismissed if he

failed to timely comply, and waited an additional period of time to allow him to comply.
Therefore, this action will be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiffs failure to comply
with this Court’s July 8, 2022 order and his failure to prosecute this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b); see also Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (“A district court has the power .
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) 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 of pro se litigant’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to file an amended
complaint).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED than an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this wt of August, 2022.

UNIYED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10237490. Public record. Not legal advice.