# C.H. v. Pattonville School District

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · March 19, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10826322

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** March 19, 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/10826322

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10826322. Public record. Not legal advice.