# Reed v. Showmaker

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · September 6, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10239233

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** September 6, 2023
- **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/10239233

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
URIYAH REED, )
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 4:23-CV-763 JMB
JOSEPH SHOWMAKER, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented plaintiff Uriyah
Reed, a pretrial detainee housed at the Metropolitan St. Louis Psychiatric Center, initiated this
action on June 12, 2023 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against five employees of the St. Louis
County Jail in their official and individual capacities. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleged, between
January of 2022 and October of 2022, four of the defendants “violated [his] federally protected
right to eat on multiple occasions, on different days” when they denied him meals. As to the fifth
defendant, plaintiff asserted she denied him breakfast on one occasion. Submitted with the
complaint was a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2.
On July 26, 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. 6. The Court determined, however,
that his claims against defendants were subject to dismissal. The official capacity claims would
‘not survive initial review because a suit against a public employee is merely a suit against his
employer, and a county jail is not a suable entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As to plaintiff's
individual capacity claims, the Court explained he did not provide enough facts to support his
allegations. For example, it was not clear from the complaint whether plaintiff was regularly

denied meals over consecutive days and, if so, how many consecutive days he was without food.
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 August 25, 2023, to file an amended
complaint.
As of the date of this Memorandum and 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 additional time to comply. Therefore, this action will
be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court’s July 26, 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.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 6" day of September, 2023.

JOHK 6 ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

. 3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10239233. Public record. Not legal advice.