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))
- 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
AMMIZABAD JOHNSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:25-cv-00216-PLC
)
APRIL CARRASCO, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 9, 2025, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), the Court assessed a $1.50
initial partial filing fee and ordered Plaintiff to pay it. Doc. [7]. The Court expressly cautioned
Plaintiff that his failure to pay the initial partial filing fee or show that he lacked the means to do
so would result in the dismissal of this case without prejudice and without further notice. Id. at
1; see 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))). Plaintiff had until Friday, May 9, 2025 to pay the initial partial filing fee.
On May 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document requesting “leave to file an amended
complaint adding a checkmark to answer yes I want trial by Jury.” Doc. [9] at 1. Plaintiff did
not request more time to comply with the Court’s April 9, 2025 Order or try to show that he had
no assets and no means to pay the initial partial filing fee.
More than three weeks have passed since Plaintiff’s deadline, but he has not complied
with the Court’s order. Thus, Plaintiff has not only failed to pay the statutorily required initial
partial filing fee, but he has also 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). The Court will therefore dismiss this case without
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will also
deny as moot Plaintiff's motion seeking leave to amend the complaint. Because the Court has
the discretion to dismiss this action without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the
Court’s Order, the Court concludes that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good
faith. See Hutchins v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 116 F.3d 1256, 1259 (8th Cir. 1997) (“A
district court has the power to dismiss a litigant’s cause of action when the litigant fails to
comply with the court’s orders.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion, doc. 9, is DENIED as moot.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
Dated this 5th day of June 2025. | | | “| /
IATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE