Opinion

Edwards v. St. Charles Police Department

Court
District Court, E.D. Missouri
Filed
Mar 28, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.3%

noting that, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the failure to pay the initial partial filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) may result in dismissal of a prisoner’s action (citing Ayo v. Bathey, 106 F.3d 98, 101 (5th Cir. 1997) (per curiam))

How later courts described this case

  • noting that, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the failure to pay the initial partial filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) may result in dismissal of a prisoner’s action (citing Ayo v. Bathey, 106 F.3d 98, 101 (5th Cir. 1997) (per curiam))

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTIAN PAUL EDWARDS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 4:23-cv-01111-MTS

)

ST. CHARLES POLICE DEPARTMENT, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), the Court assessed an initial partial filing

fee upon Plaintiff in this matter. Doc. [8]. The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the initial

partial filing fee of $51.60 no later than Monday, March 18, 2024. The Court expressly

admonished Plaintiff that the failure to timely pay the initial partial filing fee would “result

in the dismissal of this action.” Doc. [8] at 12; see also In re Smith, 114 F.3d 1247, 1251

(D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the failure to pay the

initial partial filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) may result in dismissal of a

prisoner’s action (citing Ayo v. Bathey, 106 F.3d 98, 101 (5th Cir. 1997) (per curiam))).

More than a week has passed since Plaintiff’s deadline, but he still has failed to pay

the fee.* Thus, Plaintiff has not only failed to pay the statutorily required initial partial

filing fee, but he also has disregarded an Order of this Court. See Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d

* Plaintiff did not request additional time to pay the fee; nor did he attempt to demonstrate that he “has

no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4).

801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (explaining a district court has the power “to dismiss an action for

the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order”). For these reasons, the Court will

enter an Order of Dismissal herewith dismissing Plaintiff's action without prejudice.

Dated this 28th day of March 2024. eC

wATiREW T. SCHELP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

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.