# Williams v. Watson

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · May 22, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10240324

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** May 22, 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/10240324

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

DARRYL WILLIAMS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:23-cv-01645-ACL
)
UNKNOWN WATSON, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on review of the file. Plaintiff Darryl Williams, a
prisoner, instituted this action by filing a civil complaint that was accompanied by an
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. The Application was
almost entirely blank, and did not include any of the information required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 19154(a)(1). In addition, Plaintiff did not file the certified inmate account statement required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), or provide any information about his finances. On April 25, 2024,
the Court denied the Application and directed Plaintiff to either pay the required filing fee or file
a fully completed Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.
(ECF No. 5). The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the order could
result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice and without further notice.
Plaintiff’s response was due to the Court on May 9, 2024, but to date he has not complied
with the Court’s Order or sought additional time to do so. Plaintiff was given meaningful notice
of what was expected, he was cautioned that his case would be dismissed if he failed to timely
comply, and he was given ample time to comply. The Court will therefore dismiss this action,
without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s April 25, 2024 order. 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 plaintiffs failure to comply with any court
order).
Also on April 25, 2024, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to cure the omission
of his signature on his Motion to Appoint Counsel. See (ECF No. 6). In doing so, the Court
cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to correct the omission of his signature would result in the
motion being stricken pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs
response was due on May 9, 2024, but to date he has not corrected the omission of his signature
or sought additional time to do so. The Court will therefore direct the Clerk to strike the
unsigned Motion to Appoint Counsel.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall STRIKE Plaintiff's unsigned Motion
to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
Dated this 22nd day of May, 2024.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10240324. Public record. Not legal advice.