“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’’
- “A district court may, on its own motion, dismiss an action for failure of the plaintiff to comply with any order of the court”
- stating that the “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,” and that “[a] court may so dismiss on its own initiative”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
MASON GAGE MULLIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:22-cv-00135-SNLJ
)
MARK DOBBS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On December 21, 2022, the Court
ordered plaintiff Mason Gage Mullis to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Docket No.
6). More than thirty days have elapsed, and plaintiff has not complied. 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 (ERDCC) in Bonne Terre, Missouri. On October 13, 2022, he
filed a prisoner civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming Sheriff Mark Dobbs,
Jail Administrator Mike Jones, Jail Administrator Dave Light, Judge Thomas Swindle, Prosecutor
Casey Proctor, Attorney James Keen, Correctional Officer (CO) Samuel Unknown, and CO
Francisco Vega as defendants. (Docket No. 1). Sheriff Dobbs and Jail Administrator Light were
sued in their individual capacities only. Plaintiff failed to indicate the capacity in which the other
defendants were sued. The complaint contained allegations that plaintiff was wrongfully held at
the ERDCC for fifty-three days while still a pretrial detainee.
Along with the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Docket No. 2). On December 21, 2022, the Court granted the motion, and assessed an initial
partial filing fee. (Docket No. 6). Because plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court
reviewed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Based on its initial review, the Court determined that plaintiff’s complaint was subject to
dismissal for three reasons. First, the Court noted that plaintiff failed to state individual capacity
claims against Sheriff Dobbs and Jail Administrator Light, as he presented no facts showing their
direct responsibility for a constitutional violation. Second, as plaintiff had not asserted the
capacities in which the remaining defendants were sued, the Court was required to assume they
were sued in their official capacities only, and treat the claims as being made against their
employer, Butler County. Plaintiff, however, had failed to establish the liability of the county by
demonstrating an unconstitutional policy, custom, or failure to train. Finally, even if these
defendants were treated as being sued in their individual capacities, plaintiff had not alleged
sufficient facts to hold them responsible for violating his constitutional rights. Indeed, Judge
Swindle and Prosecutor Proctor were immune from suit, while Attorney Keen was not acting under
color of law. Meanwhile, plaintiff failed to assert that defendants Jones, Samuel Unknown, or Vega
acted in an unconstitutional manner.
Rather than dismissing outright, the Court directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
He was sent a copy of the Court’s prisoner civil rights form, and given instructions on how to
properly amend. The Court gave plaintiff thirty days in which to comply, and advised him that his
failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further
notice.
On December 29, 2022, the Court received a letter from plaintiff requesting a status update
on his case. (Docket No. 7). The letter was dated December 22, 2022, the day after the Court issued
its order to amend. In response to the letter, the Clerk of Court sent plaintiff an updated copy of
the docket sheet. The Court has received no other communications from plaintiff.
Discussion
Even though he is proceeding as 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) (noting that self-
represented “litigants are not excused from compliance with substantive and procedural law”).
Furthermore, the Court may dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) on its own motion. Id. (stating that
the “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,” and that “[a] court may so dismiss on its own initiative”).
See also Haley v. Kansas City Star, 761 F.2d 489, 490 (8th Cir. 1985) (“A district court may, on
its own motion, dismiss an action for failure of the plaintiff to comply with any order of the court”).
In this case, as set forth above, plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint on a
Court form on December 21, 2022. He was given thirty days in which to comply. The amended
complaint was due on or before January 20, 2023. In the order, plaintiff was warned that his failure
to file an amended complaint would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and
without further notice.
The deadline for plaintiff to file his amended complaint has expired. Indeed, the Court has
given him substantially more than thirty days in which to comply. Despite being given additional
time, plaintiff has not submitted an amended complaint, nor has he sought an extension of time in
which to do so. The only communication the Court has had with plaintiff is a request for a status
update that was sent the day after the Court’s December 21, 2022 order. The Clerk of Court
responded to that request with an updated docket sheet, but the Court has received nothing further.
Because plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint pursuant to the Court’s order of
December 21, 2022, and has not requested 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 December 21, 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 order of dismissal would not be
taken in good faith.
Dated this 9 day of February, 2023.
LE q Lf
/ Lfine feet eagh fy.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE