Richter v. St. Louis City Jail et al
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 Catherine D. Perry on September 20, 2017. (MCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JASON CHRISTOPHER RICHTER,
ST. LOUIS CITY JAIL, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. For the reasons stated below, I will dismiss
this case without prejudice.
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. In his original complaint, he
named the St. Louis City Jail and the MSI Workhouse as defendants, and sought monetary relief.
He alleged he was denied medical treatment following a foot fracture. Upon initial review, I
noted that the complaint was subject to dismissal because neither defendant was an entity subject
to suit under § 1983, and I allowed plaintiff the opportunity to submit an amended complaint. I
clearly instructed him that he was required to allege facts showing how each defendant he named
was directly involved in or personally responsible for violating his constitutional rights.
Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint, which I reviewed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e). In the amended complaint, plaintiff named several individuals in their official and
individual capacities. However, plaintiff failed to allege that any named defendant personally
participated in or was directly responsible for any alleged deprivation of rights. Instead, he
alleged that he suffered a foot fracture, and that the Workhouse and unnamed people denied him
treatment and placed him in segregation. He also alleged that the defendants collectively failed
to ensure he was treated humanely, and allowed the Workhouse to “act in neglect, malpractice
and racism” in violation of his constitutional rights. (Docket No. 6 at 5). In a Memorandum and
Order dated August 3, 2017, I noted that the amended complaint was subject to dismissal
because plaintiff failed to allege that any defendant personally participated in or was directly
responsible for any alleged deprivation of rights, and permitted him to file a second amended
complaint. In so doing, I clearly explained the deficiencies of the amended complaint, clearly
instructed plaintiff how to prepare the second amended complaint, and cautioned him that, if he
failed to timely comply, his case would be dismissed without prejudice and without further
Plaintiff’s response was due to the Court on August 24, 2017. To date, however, he has
neither filed a second 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 my August 3, 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).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED than an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
Dated this 20th day of September, 2017.
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?