# Long v. Gornik

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · February 20, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10803459

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** February 20, 2025
- **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/10803459

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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))
- explaining a district court has the power “to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order”

## Opinion text

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

MARIO B. LONG, SR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:24-cv-01289-MTS
)
MAUREEN W. GORNIK, )
)
Defendant. )

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 $36.27 no later than Thursday, February 06, 2025. The Court expressly admonished Plaintiff
that the failure to timely pay the initial partial filing fee would “result in the dismissal of this action
without further notice.” Doc. [8] at 1; 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))).
Two weeks have 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 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”); Hutchins v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 116 F.3d 1256, 1259 (8th Cir.
1997) (same).

* 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).
For these reasons, the Court will enter an Order of Dismissal herewith dismissing
Plaintiffs action without prejudice.
Dated this 20th day of February 2025. /
ol THEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10803459. Public record. Not legal advice.