Robinett v. Lisenbee 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 E. Richard Webber on February 7, 2017. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL R. ROBINETT, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD LISENBEE, JR. et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-cv-1736-NCC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Due to plaintiff’s failure to
comply with this Court’s December 30, 2016 Order, this action will be dismissed pursuant to
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Procedural History
Plaintiff Michael Robinett, an inmate at the Phelps County Jail, commenced this civil
action on November 7, 2016, naming Sheriff Richard Lisenbee, Jr. and Lieutenant Matt Shults as
defendants. At the time plaintiff commenced this action, he neither paid the statutory filing fee
nor sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the Court entered an order directing him to
do one or the other. Plaintiff subsequently sought and was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and the Court assessed an initial partial filing fee of $13.00. The Court reviewed the
complaint and noted that pages were obviously missing. The Court also noted that, in the intact
portion of the complaint, plaintiff purported to bring claims to federal court on behalf of others,
which was impermissible.
In an order dated December 30, 2016, the Court noted the foregoing deficiencies and
directed plaintiff to submit an amended complaint (and pay the initial partial filing fee) within

thirty days. In that order, the Court expressly cautioned plaintiff that his failure to timely comply
would result in the dismissal of his case without further notice to him. Plaintiff’s response to the
Court was due on January 30, 2017. To date, he has filed nothing.
Discussion
This Court may dismiss an action for refusal of the plaintiff to comply with any court
order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and such action may be taken on the court’s own motion. Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir.
1984) (per curiam) (court may sua sponte dismiss an action if plaintiff fails to comply with court
order). Although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, pro se litigants are not excused from
complying with substantive and procedural law. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834-35 n.
46 (1975); McNeil v. U.S., 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (giving a pro se complaint the benefit of a
liberal construction does not mean that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation must be
interpreted so as to excuse the errors of pro se litigants).
It is apparent that plaintiff has abandoned this case, given his failure to timely comply
with this Court’s December 30, 2016 Order. The Court will therefore dismiss this action without
prejudice. See Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (holding that a district court
has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order).

2

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 7th day of February, 2017.

____________________________________
E. RICHARD WEBBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3