Shultz v. Stoddard County Jail et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken ingood faith. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 11/16/22. (MRS) Modified on 11/17/2022 (MRS).

Case: 1:22-cv-00076-DDN Doc. #: 14 Filed: 11/16/22 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 131

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER SHULTZ,
Plaintiff,

v.
STODDARD COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:22-CV-76-DDN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented plaintiff
Christopher Shultz initiated this case on June 8, 2022 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
Stoddard County Jail and eight employees. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff indicated two defendants were to
be named in their official and individual capacities, but was silent as to the remaining defendants.
Submitted with the complaint was a motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis. ECF No. 2.
Plaintiff alleged one of the defendants placed him with an enemy inmate, and he was subsequently
subjected to an attack. Plaintiff also claimed he was wrongfully placed in a holding cell for more
than 40 days and denied "showing, hygiene and more." Plaintiff did not state who placed him in
the cell or who denied him specific necessities.
On September 12, 2022, the Court reviewed plaintiffs complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, and granted his motion to proceed informa pauperis. ECF No. 12. The Court determined
his official capacity claims were subject to dismissal because naming government officials in their
official capacities is equivalent to naming their employer, and Stoddard County Jail was not an
entity that could be sued under § 1983. Even if Stoddard County was substituted as the employer
of defendants, plaintiff did not assert municipal liability. As to plaintiffs individual capacity

Case: 1:22-cv-00076-DDN Doc. #: 14 Filed: 11/16/22 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 132

claims against the two defendants, the Court noted plaintiffs failure to allege how both were
involved in or personally responsible for specific violations of his constitutional rights. Lastly, the
Court determined the complaint was further subject to dismissal because the allegations did not
appear to arise out of the same transactions or occurrences, and did not share a question of law or
fact common to all of the named defendants. In consideration of plaintiffs self-represented status,
the Court directed him to file an amended complaint to cure his pleading deficiencies. Plaintiff
was mailed the appropriate Court-form and provided specific instructions on how to submit his
amendment. He was warned that his failure to timely comply would result in the dismissal of this
action without prejudice and without further notice. Plaintiff had thirty (30) days, or until October
12, 2022, to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court, dated September 9, 2022, which was received and filed
on September 15, 2022. ECF No. 13. The letter indicated a change of address to the Potosi
Correctional Center. Id On the same day plaintiffs letter was filed, the Court resent its
Memorandum and Order to the Potosi Correctional Center, which directed plaintiff to amend his
complaint. Consequently, the Court readjusted the thirty (30) day deadline. Plaintiff had until
October 15, 2022 to file an amended complaint.
As of the date of this Order, plaintiff has not complied with the Court's directive to amend
his complaint, nor has he sought additional time to do so. The Court gave plaintiff meaningful
notice of what was expected, cautioned him that his case would be dismissed ifhe failed to timely
comply, and gave him significant additional time to comply. Therefore, this action will be
dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiffs failure to comply with the Court's September 12,
2022 Order and his failure to prosecute his case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Brown v. Frey,

2

Case: 1:22-cv-00076-DDN Doc. #: 14 Filed: 11/16/22 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 133

806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the
plaintiffs failure to comply with any court order); Dudley v. Miles, 597 F. App'x 392 (8th Cir.
2015) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal without prejudice where self-represented plaintiff failed
to file an amended complaint despite being cautioned that dismissal could result from failure to do
so). This dismissal will not count as a "strike" for purposes of28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this

__&_:~ay of November, 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3