Hunter v. Reno County Sheriff's Office et al
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis 2 is denied because it is deficient. 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 08/29/17. Mailed to pro se party Raymon Levi Hunter by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RAYMON LEVI HUNTER,
CASE NO. 17-3121-SAC-DJW
RENO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al.,
This pro se civil rights complaint was filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by an inmate
confined in the Reno County Correctional Facility in Hutchinson, Kansas. Plaintiff filed a
Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 2) on July 26, 2017. Plaintiff’s motion
failed to include a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent)
for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint.
On July 26, 2017, the Court entered a Notice of Deficiency (Doc. 3) to Plaintiff ordering
him to submit within thirty (30) days the financial information required by federal law to support
his Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees. The Order provides that failure to
comply within the prescribed time may result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s case without further
Plaintiff has failed to supply the missing financial information by the
August 25, 2017 deadline set forth in the Court’s Order.
The Court mailed the Notice of Deficiency to Plaintiff on July 26, 2017, at his current
address of record with the Court. The mail was returned undeliverable, indicating Plaintiff was
no longer in custody. (Doc. 4.) The Court’s Local Rules provide that “[e]ach attorney or pro se
party must notify the clerk in writing of any change of address or telephone number. Any notice
mailed to the last address of record of an attorney or pro se party is sufficient notice.” D. Kan.
Rule 5.1(c)(3). Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a Notice of Change of Address and
failed to file a response to Notice of Deficiency within the allowed time.
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 in which Plaintiff was required to respond to the Notice of Deficiency has
passed without a response from Plaintiff. 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’s Motion for Leave
to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied because it is deficient.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 29th day of August, 2017, at 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?