Potter v. Jordan et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED than an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 10/20/2017. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
DANIEL POTTER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN JORDAN, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:17-cv-116-ACL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff filed this civil action on
July 24, 2017, and filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court granted
plaintiff’s motion and conducted initial review of the complaint. The Court determined that the
complaint was defective because plaintiff named eight defendants and eight fictitious parties, and
asserted numerous unrelated claims against them. On September 19, 2017, the Court gave
plaintiff an opportunity to submit an amended complaint, and cautioned him that his failure to
timely respond would result in the dismissal of his case without further notice. His response to
the Court was due on October 10, 2017.
To date, plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint nor sought additional time to do
so. Plaintiff was given meaningful notice of what was expected, and cautioned that his case
would be dismissed if he failed to timely comply. Therefore, this action will be dismissed
without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case and his failure to comply with
this Court’s September 19, 2017 order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Dudley v. Miles, 597 F.
App’x 392 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal without prejudice where pro se
plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint despite being cautioned that dismissal could result

from failure to do so); Fitzwater v. Ray, 352 F. App’x 125, 126 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam)
(district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing action without prejudice when the pro se
plaintiffs failed to comply with an order “directing them to file within fourteen days an amended
complaint in conformity with Rule 8”); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (a
district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any
court order).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

A

separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED than an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 20th day of October, 2017.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2