Mohammed Bey v. Slay et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full 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 4/20/17. (EAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ABDUL AYAT MOHAMMED BEY,
a/k/a Ronald B. Britt-Bey,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANCIS SLAY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-cv-965-PLC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff, who is a very frequent
pro se and in forma pauperis litigator in this Court, commenced this civil action on March 14,
2017, and filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On March 20, 2017, the Court
granted plaintiff’s motion and conducted initial review, and noted numerous defects.

For

example, plaintiff named eight defendants (the Mayor of the City of Saint Louis, five police
officers, and two United States senators) and asserted numerous unrelated claims against them,
and the complaint failed to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court gave plaintiff an opportunity to submit an amended complaint, providing him with
specific instructions regarding how to properly compose it. The Court also cautioned plaintiff
that his failure to timely comply with the Court’s order would result in the dismissal of his case
without further notice. His response to the Court was due on April 10, 2017.
To date, plaintiff has neither filed an 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

this Court’s March 20, 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).
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 20th day of April, 2017.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2