Kidwell v. Hayden et al

Filing 6

ORDER ENTERED: This action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 11/21/22. Mailed to pro se party Ronald Lee Kidwell by regular mail. (smnd)

Case 5:22-cv-03274-JWL-JPO Document 6 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RONALD LEE KIDWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 22-3274-JWL-JPO

CALVIN HAYDEN, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, Ronald Lee Kidwell, is in custody at the Johnson County Adult Detention
Center in Olathe, Kansas. Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action on October 24, 2022. The
Court entered an Order (Doc. 4) denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave 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 found no showing of imminent danger of serious
physical injury. The Court also granted Plaintiff until November 14, 2022, to submit the $402.00
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. 4, at
2.)
Plaintiff has filed a response (Doc. 5) suggesting that the Court is enabling staff at the
Johnson County Sheriff’s Office to violate inmates’ civil and constitutional rights. Nothing in
the response suggests that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff has
failed to pay the filing fee by the deadline set forth in the order.
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

1

Case 5:22-cv-03274-JWL-JPO Document 6 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 2

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).
Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee by the deadline set forth in the Court’s order. 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 ORDERED BY THE COURT that this action is dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated November 21, 2022, in Kansas City, Kansas.

S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2