Opinion

C.H. v. Pattonville School District

Court
District Court, E.D. Missouri
Filed
Mar 19, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.5%

explaining 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

  • explaining 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

C.H. by and through next friend, )

SONYA MARIE HUNT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

Vv. ) Case No. 4:21-cv-00443-SEP

)

PATTONVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On January 10, 2025, this Court entered an Order giving Plaintiff 30 days to file an

amended complaint. See Doc. [76]. The Order stated that, if Plaintiff failed to file an amended

complaint with himself as the properly named Plaintiff within that time frame, “this action will

be dismissed without prejudice.” Jd. at 5. Because Plaintiff still has not filed an amended

complaint despite the Court’s clear instructions, the Court will dismiss this action. 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”).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Appoint Counsel, Doc. [77], is

DENIED as moot.!

Dated this 19 day of March, 2025.

tel Lf Hig

SARAH E. PITLYK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' Instead of filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff moved for appointment of counsel. See Doc. [77]. As

the Court has explained to Plaintiff, a pro se litigant in a civil case does not have a constitutional or

statutory right to appointed counsel. /d. at 2; see Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). Still,

because Plaintiff was a minor for most of the pendency of this lawsuit, the Court has appointed six

attorneys to represent Plaintiffs interests in the past. See Docs. [11], [14], [24], [45], [49], [64]. None

has been able to work successfully with Plaintiff and his family to get an amended complaint on file.

Almost four years into the lawsuit, no Defendant has been served. Over those four years, Plaintiff has

been granted 13 extensions of time to file an amended complaint, yet none has been filed. See Docs. [16],

[18], [20], [26], [31], [34], [40], [52], [55], [57], [59], [62], [67]. The Court thus has ample evidence that

appointing Plaintiff another attorney would not have prevented dismissal of this lawsuit.

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.