Wilson v. Cauldwell et al

Filing 9

OPINION 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 FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docke t No. 2 ) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 5 ) is DENIED as moot. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 8/29/17. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
REGINALD D. WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN CAULDWELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17CV1456 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon its own motion. Plaintiff, a prisoner and frequent
filer of lawsuits who is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This Court conducted initial review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and noted that, while plaintiff stated he was in imminent danger of
serious physical injury, he only alleged and sought relief for past harm. In an Order dated July
12, 2017, this Court permitted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to more clearly set
forth why he believed he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff was
cautioned that his failure to timely respond would result in the dismissal of his case without
prejudice and without further notice.
The Order was mailed to plaintiff at the address he provided, but on July 27, 2017, it was
returned to the Court as undeliverable. A new address was obtained for plaintiff, and the Order
was resent to him there. To date, however, 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 July 12, 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); 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.
T IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Docket No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel
(Docket No. 5) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 29th day of August, 2017

___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2