Copeland v. Hefner et al

Filing 6

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 Ronnie L. White on 8/1/22. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
RICHARDSON COPELAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARL HEFNER and ANDY HOLDER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:22-CV-31-RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of the file. On March 17, 2022, plaintiff
Richardson Copeland, an inmate at the Farmington Correctional Center, initiated this action by
filing a civil rights complaint against Carl Hefner and Andy Holder. He sought and was granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) and determined it was defective and subject to dismissal. On June 16, 2022, the Court
issued an order giving plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint. In that order, the
Court clearly explained why the complaint was subject to dismissal, gave plaintiff clear
instructions about how to prepare the amended complaint, and cautioned him that his failure to
timely file an amended complaint could result in the dismissal of his case without prejudice and
without further notice. The Court also directed plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee.
Plaintiff’s response to the Court was due on July 18, 2022. To date, however, plaintiff has
not filed an amended complaint or sought additional time to do so. The Court gave plaintiff
meaningful notice of what was expected, cautioned him that his case would be dismissed if he
failed to timely comply, and waited additional time for him to comply. The Court will therefore
dismiss this action at this time, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with this

Court’s June 16, 2022 order and his failure to prosecute this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see
also Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (“A district court has the power under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b) to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order[.]”);
Dudley v. Miles, 597 F. App’x 392 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of pro se
litigant’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to file an amended complaint).
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.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 1st day of August, 2022.

2