Jackson (ID 77685) v. King et al
NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ENTERED: Plaintiff is required to show good cause in writing, on or before September 8, 2017, why the court should not dismiss this action under Rule 41 for failing to comply with court orders. Signed by District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree on 08/16/17. Mailed to pro se party Anthony T. Jackson by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANTHONY T. JACKSON,
Case No. 15-3183-DDC-DJW
AMANDA KING, et al.,
NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff never has filed his Amended Complaint, as the court has directed him to do more
than once. On February 1, 2017, the court granted plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an
Amended Complaint. Doc. 17. And, the court ordered plaintiff to file his Amended Complaint
on or before February 17, 2017. Id. On May 30, 2017, Judge David J. Waxse held a scheduling
conference with the parties. He observed that plaintiff never filed his Amended Complaint as the
court had directed him to do back in February. Judge Waxse advised the parties that he would
issue an order ruling plaintiff’s pending Motion to Appoint Counsel, and in that Order, he would
establish a deadline for plaintiff to file his Amended Complaint. On July 12, 2017, Judge Waxse
denied plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel without prejudice and ordered plaintiff to file his
Amended Complaint within 14 days of the Order. Doc. 24. The time for plaintiff to file his
Amended Complaint has passed, and plaintiff still has not filed the Amended Complaint as the
court has directed him to do on two occasions.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “authorizes a district court, upon a
defendant’s motion, to order the dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or ‘a court order.’” Young v. United States,
316 F. App’x 764, 771 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). “This rule has been
interpreted as permitting district courts to dismiss actions sua sponte when one of these
conditions is met.” Id. (first citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962); then
citing Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)). “In addition, it is well
established in this circuit that a district court is not obligated to follow any particular procedures
when dismissing an action without prejudice under Rule 41(b).” Id. at 771–72 (citations
Because plaintiff never has complied with the court’s orders to file his Amended
Complaint, the court orders plaintiff to show cause in writing, on or before September 8, 2017,
why the court should not dismiss his case without prejudice under Rule 41 for failing to comply
with court orders.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT plaintiff is required to show good cause in
writing, on or before September 8, 2017, why the court should not dismiss this action under
Rule 41 for failing to comply with court orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 16th day of August, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?