Opinion

Bey v. Citibank, N.A.

Court
District Court, E.D. Missouri
Filed
Feb 13, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.3%

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

EASTERN DIVISION

DARNELL BEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 4:23-CV-1715 RLW

)

CITIBANK, N.A., )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. For the following reasons, this

action will be dismissed without prejudice.

On December 22, 2023, self-represented plaintiff Darnell Bey filed a Civil Complaint

against defendant Citibank, N.A. for a violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C.

§§ 1691, et seq. (“ECOA”). ECF No. 1. With his complaint, plaintiff filed an application for leave

to commence the action without prepayment of the required filing fee. ECF No. 2.

On January 4, 2024, the Court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ECF No. 3. Upon such review, the Court

determined plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to the ECOA were subject to dismissal for failure

to state a claim. The Court explained the complaint did not provide any nonconclusory facts to

support that plaintiff is a member of a protected class, was qualified for the credit sought, and was

treated differently compared to other debtors in a similar position. Id.at 4. In consideration of

plaintiff’s self-represented status, plaintiff was directed to amend his complaint and provided with

instructions on how to do so. Plaintiff was mailed the appropriate form and warned that his failure

to timely comply would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further

notice.

Plaintiff's amended complaint was due on February 5, 2024. To date, however, he has not

complied with the Court’s January 4, 2024 Memorandum and Order, or 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. Therefore,

this action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Order and

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).

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.

RONNIE L. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 13th day of February, 2024.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.