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
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
MELKIS OREYANA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 1:23-CV-36 SNLJ
)
BILL STANGE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented plaintiff Melkis
Oreyana initiated this case on March 17, 2023 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden Bill
Stange, in his official capacity only, and Correctional Officer Aaron R. Raines, in his individual
capacity only. ECF No. 1. Both defendants are alleged to be employees of the Southeast
Correctional Center (“SECC”) in Charleston, Missouri. Plaintiff alleged he was inappropriately
assigned to administrative segregation, denied “phone calls/visits etc.,” and refused “access to
mental health.” ECF No. 1 at 4. Submitted with the complaint was a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2.
On May 3, 2023, the Court reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915
and granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 5. The Court determined his claims
against defendants were subject to dismissal. The Court explained the official capacity claim
against Warden Stange was barred by sovereign immunity and failed to state a claim because a
state agent is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983. ECF No. 5. As to plaintiff’s individual capacity
claim against officer Raines, the Court noted plaintiff’s failure to include how he was personally
responsible for the alleged constitutional violations. 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 thirty (30) days,
or until June 2, 2023, to file an amended complaint.
As of the date of this Order, plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s directive to amend
his complaint, nor has he 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 gave him significant additional time to comply. Therefore, this action will be
dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s May 3, 2023
Order and his 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 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.
2
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 21“ day of June, 2023.
ff Pe ry fo
ft Ss EY Ser < Af,
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE