Perry v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This matter is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion 3 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 8/7/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Jason L. Perry by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JASON L. PERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 12-3100-SAC

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
By its order of July 11, 2012, the court directed plaintiff to
submit copies of his institutional financial records and to advise
the court whether he had pursued an administrative tort claim and
whether he intended to pursue relief in this matter pursuant to
Bivens.1

Plaintiff was advised that a response was due on or before

August 3, 2012, and that the failure to file a timely response might
result in the dismissal of this matter without additional prior
notice. There has been no response.
A court has the inherent power to dismiss an action for failure
to prosecute in order to ensure the orderly and expeditious resolution
of the cases on its docket. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626,
630-31 (1962). Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides, in part, “If the plaintiff … fails to comply with [court]
rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action
or any claim against it.” The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has

1

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1980).

interpreted this rule “to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte
for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.” Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199,
1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003). Having considered the record, the court finds
this matter may be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to respond
to the court’s order of July 11, 2012.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED this matter is dismissed
without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is denied.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 7th day of August, 2012, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge