Williams v. United States et al

Filing 4

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 in good faith. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Signed by Sr. District Judge John A. Ross on 1/6/2025. (TLR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
BRAYON WILLIAMS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 2:24-CV-98-SRW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. For the following reasons, this
action will be dismissed without prejudice.
On December 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant action against the United States of America
and the Legislative Branch of Government. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated “18
USC Ch. 90: Protection of Trade Secrets Subsection 1831.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff also filed an
‘Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs.’ ECF No. 2.
On December 9, 2024, this Court reviewed Plaintiff’s filings and determined the complaint
and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis was defective because both documents did not include
his signature as required by E.D. Mo. Local Rule 2.01(A)(1) and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The Court explained it would not accept a series of letters and numbers as a
substitute for his signature. See also Williams v. U.S., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-72-HEA (E.D. Mo.
Dec. 3, 2024) (The Honorable United States District Judge Henry Edward Autrey has also
explained to Plaintiff that “WILB3787” will not suffice as his signature). Consequently, the Court
provided Plaintiff with the opportunity to resubmit a signed complaint and motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, due within fourteen days, or no later than December 23, 2024.

As of the date of this Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s
directive to resubmit a signed complaint and motion, 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 if he failed to timely comply, and gave him additional time to comply.
Therefore, this action will be dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with
the Court’s December 9, 2024 Memorandum and Order and his failure to prosecute his case. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also 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 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 6th day of January, 2025.

________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2