Wyatt v. St. Charles County Jail

Filing 7

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 FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 4 ) is DENIED as moot. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED than an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 9/18/2017. (CLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
HARRIS WYATT,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. CHARLES COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-cv-1584-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. For the reasons stated below, this case will be
dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff brought this action by submitting a complaint in the form of a letter that stated
his constitutional rights were being violated at the St. Charles County Jail. He named the jail as
the sole defendant. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and the Court directed him to do one or the other. He filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, and in a Memorandum and Order dated July 27, 2017, the Court
granted the motion and reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court
determined that the complaint was frivolous and subject to dismissal. However, in consideration
of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court gave him the opportunity to submit an amended complaint.
The Court clearly instructed plaintiff how to prepare the amended complaint, and cautioned him
that, if he failed to timely comply with the Court’s order, his case would be dismissed without
prejudice and without further notice.
Plaintiff’s response was due to the Court on August 17, 2017. To date, he has neither
complied with the Court’s order 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 the Court’s July 27, 2017
Memorandum and Order. See 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 FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 4)
is DENIED as moot.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED than an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 18th day of September, 2017.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE