stating that district court may dismiss a self-represented litigant’s action for failure to comply with a court order on its own initiative
How later courts described this case
- stating that district court may dismiss a self-represented 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
EASTERN DIVISION
SIDNEY KEYS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:22-CV-1100-RLW
)
RED ROOF INN HOTEL, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On October 28, 2022, the Court ordered
plaintiff to show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. A response was due within thirty days. Plaintiff has not complied. Therefore, for the
reasons discussed below, this action will be dismissed.
Background
Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who filed the instant civil action against defendants
Red Roof Inn Hotel and Bill Hall, the CEO of Red Roof Inn. ECF No. 1. In the complaint, plaintiff
asserted federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on his status as “a
disabled United States Marine and United States Postal Employee of 27 years of Federal
Employment and Service.” Id. at 3. It was unclear whether plaintiff also intended to allege diversity
of citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff stated he was a citizen of
“America,” and indicated “Mr. Bill Hall – CEO (Red Roof)” was incorporated under the laws of
the State of Ohio and had its principal place of business in the State of Missouri. Id. at 3-4. In the
caption, plaintiff listed his home address in St. Louis, Missouri, and the address of Red Roof Inn
in Maryland Heights, Missouri. Id. at 1. Plaintiff did not state the amount of monetary damages he
sought.
Plaintiff alleged that on October 11, 2022 he checked into the Red Roof Inn located at
11837 Lackland Road, Maryland Heights, Missouri. He claimed he was “given an [un]inhabitable
hotel room twice when in fact the[y] had [a] newly renovated vacant hotel room available.” Id. at
5. The first room they assigned him “smelled like urine” and appeared to have urine on a bed
pillow, and the second room they assigned him was infested with bed bugs that bit him, his partner,
and his infant son. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff alleged his room assignments were due to racial
discrimination, and the incident caused “pyscological [sic] and physical harm and possible
infection.” Id.
On October 28, 2022, the Court reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, and determined he had not adequately demonstrated the existence of subject matter
jurisdiction. ECF No. 5. The Court explained that plaintiff did not provide a jurisdictional amount
in controversy and did not clearly allege facts to show the parties’ diversity of citizenship.
Additionally, plaintiff did not identify a federal statute or constitutional provision to establish that
his claim in this case involved a federal matter. Being a former employee of the federal government
or serving in the military was not a basis for federal question jurisdiction. Because federal courts
only have subject matter jurisdiction over federal question and diversity of citizenship cases, the
Court directed plaintiff to show cause, within thirty days, why this action should not be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond would result in the dismissal
of this action without prejudice and without further notice.
Discussion
As stated above, on October 28, 2022, the Court ordered plaintiff to submit a written
show cause response demonstrating why his case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Plaintiff was given thirty days to comply. The show cause response was due no later
than November 28, 2022. The Court advised plaintiff that failure to file a timely response would
result in the dismissal of his case without prejudice and without further notice.
The deadline for plaintiff to file his show cause response has expired. Plaintiff has failed
to submit a response as directed. He has also failed to file a motion with the Court seeking an
extension of time in which to comply.
Under Rule 41(b), an action may be dismissed for failure to comply with a court
order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See also Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (stating
that district court may dismiss a self-represented litigant’s action for failure to comply with a court
order on its own initiative). Because plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s Order of October
28, 2022, or filed any type of motion seeking an extension of time in which to comply, the Court
will dismiss this action without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure
to comply with the Court’s order of October 28, 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.
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 30th day of November, 2022.