Jones v. O'Berling et al
ORDER ENTERED: 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 09/19/17. Mailed to pro se party Joseph Lee Jones by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JOSEPH LEE JONES,
CASE NO. 17-3142-SAC-DJW
(FNU) O’BERLING, et al.,
Plaintiff, Joseph Lee Jones, is a federal prisoner housed at Englewood–FCI in Littleton,
Colorado. Plaintiff filed this Bivens action against a DEA Agent, the State of Kansas, Shawnee
County, Kansas, the Topeka Police Department, and other defendants, alleging coercion,
entrapment and loss of liberty.
The Court entered an Order (Doc. 3) denying Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, finding Plaintiff is subject to the “three-strikes” provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Court examined the Complaint and attachments and found no showing of imminent danger
of serious physical injury. The Court also granted Plaintiff until September 15, 2017, to submit
the $400.00 filing fee. The Court’s order provided that “[t]he failure to submit the fee by that
date will result in the dismissal of this matter without prejudice and without additional prior
notice.” (Doc. 3, at 2.) Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee by the deadline set forth in the
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 submit the filing fee 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 this action is dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated on this 19th day of September, 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?