# Bey v. Citibank, N.A.

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · February 13, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10239912

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** February 13, 2024
- **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/10239912

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10239912. Public record. Not legal advice.