Kendrick Harris v. John Doe, et al

Filing 920090624

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1457 ___________ Kendrick Harris, Appellant, v. Forest Park Hospital; Forest Park Hospital Security John Does 1-6; St. Louis Police Department/Sublett Station, Defendants, John Doe, Sergeant; John Doe, Police Officer; Jane Doe, Police Officer, Appellees, St. Louis City Justice Center Processing, Defendant, Unknown Collins, Nurse; Unknown Sims, Nurse; Unknown Hill, Nurse, Appellees, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. [UNPUBLISHED]

* St. Louis City Justice Center Medical * Department; Unknown Smith, St. Louis * City Justice Center Social Worker, * * Defendants. * ___________ Submitted: June 5, 2009 Filed: June 24, 2009 ___________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Kendrick Harris appeals the district court's1 dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion because Harris failed to comply with the court's order directing him to provide the names and addresses for defendants, even after being granted two extensions of time to do so. See Smith v. Gold Dust Casino, 526 F.3d 402, 404-05 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); Farnsworth v. Kansas City, Mo., 863 F.2d 33, 34 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (pro se litigants are not excused from complying with court orders); Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d 372, 374 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (fact that Rule 41(b) dismissal is without prejudice mitigates against finding abuse of discretion). We further conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying appointment of counsel. See Stevens

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, then Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2-

1

v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review; relevant factors include complexity of case, ability of plaintiff to investigate facts and present claims, and existence of conflicting testimony). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________

-3-