White v. United States of America et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 4 ) and Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 5 ) are denied. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 03/10/25. Mailed to pro se party Larry White by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
LARRY WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 25-3023-JWL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is in custody at the
Missouri Eastern Correctional Center in Pacific, Missouri. Plaintiff seeks to compel former state
governor [sic] and former U.S. Senator Nancey [sic] Kassabaum [sic] to fulfill obligations under
a 1984 contract she allegedly entered into with Plaintiff. (Doc. 2, at 2.) Plaintiff also alleges that
his family is in danger based on allegations of organized crime, a national security breach,
domestic terrorism, murder, kidnapping, raping children under 12, and cybercrimes against Kansas
and the United States. Id. at 3. Plaintiff has made similar claims in a prior case filed in this Court.1
On February 12, 2025, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 6) (“M&O”)
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 credible showing of imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court granted
Plaintiff until March 7, 2025, to submit the $405.00 filing fee.

1

The Court dismissed Case No. 24-3179-JWL for failure to state a claim. In denying Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider,
the Court noted that “Plaintiff’s allegations regarding criminal activity appear to be frivolous.” White v. FBI, Case
No. 24-3179-JWL, Doc. 10, at n. 1 (D. Kan. Nov. 8, 2024).

1

The M&O provides 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. 6, at 4.)
Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee by the deadline set forth in the M&O.
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).
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 FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel
(Doc. 4) and Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 5) are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated March 10, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2