Orr et al v. Dye et al
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff Kent Johnson's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 5 is denied. This action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 08/23/17. Mailed to pro se party Norman Eugene Orr, Kent Johnson and Ibrahim Albureni by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
NORMAN EUGENE ORR,
KENT JOHNSON, and
CASE NO. 17-3112-SAC-DJW
IKE DYE, et al.,
Plaintiffs Norman Eugene Orr, Kent Johnson and Ibrahim Albureni, are prisoners housed
at the Montgomery County Jail in Independence, Kansas. Plaintiffs filed this pro se civil rights
case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A Notice of Deficiency (“NOD”) was issued due to Plaintiffs’
failure to submit their complaint on court-approved forms and their failure to either pay the filing
fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The deadline for curing the
deficiencies was August 9, 2017. (Doc. 3.) Plaintiff Albureni has not responded to the NOD.
Plaintiffs Orr and Johnson submitted their own complaints on court approved forms and filed
motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 2, 4, 6 and 7.) On July 21, 2017, the
Court entered an order (Doc. 8) granting Plaintiff Orr leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and
assessing an initial partial filing fee of $2.50. The Order provided that failure to pay the partial
fee within fourteen days from receipt of the order “may result in the dismissal of this matter
without further notice.” To date, Plaintiff Orr has not submitted the partial fee or filed an
objection to the fee order. The Court entered another Notice of Deficiency to Plaintiff Johnson,
because he failed to submit the financial information to support his motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Doc. 9.) The Notice gave Plaintiff Johnson until August 21, 2017, to cure
the deficiency. All of the Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Court’s deadlines.
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. U.S., 316 F.
App’x 764, 771 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing 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.
(citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962); 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).” Young, 316 F. App’x at 771–72 (citations omitted).
The time for Plaintiffs to comply with the Court’s orders has passed without any response
from Plaintiffs. As a consequence, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice pursuant to
Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with court orders.
IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that Plaintiff Kent Johnson’s
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) is denied.
IT IS FURETHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated on this 23rd day of August, 2017, in Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U. S. Senior 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?