# Ward v. Pike County Detention Center

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · October 26, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10239459

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** October 26, 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/10239459

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION

OSCAR MARCUS WARD, III, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 2:23-CV-44-HEA
)
PIKE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, )
)
Defendant. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. For the following reasons, this
case will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
As explained in the Court’s September 13, 2023 Order, Plaintiff instituted this action by
filing a pleading containing a long narrative statement about numerous allegedly unconstitutional
conditions of confinement. While it appeared that Plaintiff wished to initiate a civil rights action,
the pleading contained no allegations that could be liberally construed to state a plausible claim
for relief. Additionally, Plaintiff did not pay the required filing fee, or file a motion for leave to
proceed without prepayment of such fee.
On September 13, 2023, this Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the required filing fee
or move for leave to proceed without prepayment of such fee, and to file an amended complaint.
The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply would result in the dismissal of
this case without further notice.
Plaintiff’s response was due to the Court on October 13, 2023, but to date, he has not
complied with the Order or sought additional time to do so. The Court gave Plaintiff meaningful
notice of what was expected, and cautioned him that his case would be dismissed if he failed to
timely comply. Therefore, the Court will dismiss this action, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff's
failure to comply with the September 13, 2023 Order, and his failure to prosecute this case. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Brown vy. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district
court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiffs failure to comply with any court
order), Dudley vy. Miles, 597 F. App’x 392 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal
without prejudice where pro se plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint despite being
cautioned that dismissal could result from failure to do so).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
Dated this 26" day of October, 2023.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10239459. Public record. Not legal advice.