Summary
affirming district court's dismissal of plaintiff's § 1983 action without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order directing him to provide defendants' names and addresses to effectuate service after two extensions of time
Summary of this case from Williams v. LombardiOpinion
No. 08-1457.
Submitted: June 5, 2009.
Filed: June 24, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Kendrick Harris, St. Louis, MO, pro se.
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]
Kendrick Harris appeals the district court's dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion because Harris failed to comply with the court's order directing him to provide the names and addresses for defendants, even after being granted two extensions of time to do so. See Smith v. Gold Dust Casino, 526 F.3d 402, 404-05 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); Farnsworth v. Kansas City, Mo., 863 F.2d 33, 34 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (pro se litigants are not excused from complying with court orders); Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d 372, 374 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (fact that Rule 41(b) dismissal is without prejudice mitigates against finding abuse of discretion). We further conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying appointment of counsel. See Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review; relevant factors include complexity of case, ability of plaintiff to investigate facts and present claims, and existence of conflicting testimony).
The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, then Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Accordingly, we affirm.