Fowler (ID 126080) v. Topeka Correctional Facility et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and, in the alternative, for failure to comply with a court order. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 11/14/23. Mailed to pro se party Katelynn J. Fowler by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KATELYNN J. FOWLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 23-3218-JWL

TOPEKA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff and state prisoner Katelynn J. Fowler initiated this matter by filing a pro se
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) The Court reviewed the complaint and identified
deficiencies that left it subject to dismissal in its entirety. Thus, on October 6, 2023, the Court
issued a Memorandum and Order (M&O) identifying the deficiencies and granting Plaintiff time
to file an amended complaint that cured them. (Doc. 4.) The M&O cautioned Plaintiff that if she
“fails to timely file an amended complaint, the Court will proceed on the current complaint, which
will be dismissed without prejudice for the reasons stated herein without further prior notice to
Plaintiff.” Id. at 9-10. The deadline for filing the amended complaint was November 6, 2023. Id.
at 10. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint in this matter, nor has she filed anything further.
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. Appx.
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,
1

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. Appx. at 771–72 (citations omitted).
The time in which Plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint has passed without
Plaintiff doing so. As a consequence, the Court concludes that this action should be dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. In addition, this
action is subject to dismissal in the alternative for failure to state a claim on which relief can be
granted, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s previous memorandum and order (Doc. 4).

IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that this action is dismissed
without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and, in the alternative,
for failure to comply with a court order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated on this 14th day of November, 2023, in Kansas City, Kansas.

s/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
United States District Judge

2