Opinion
23-3068-JWL
04-12-2023
CHRISTOPHER COTY MAIER, Plaintiff, v. CARTELVEN, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Christopher Coty Maier is a state prisoner housed at Douglas County Jail in Lawrence, Kansas. On March 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action, seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations, and he filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (Docs. 1, 2.) The same day, the Court entered an order noting that Plaintiff is subject to the “three-strikes” provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which means that he may proceed IFP only if he establishes a threat of imminent danger of serious physical injury. (Doc. 3.) The Court examined the complaint and attachments and found no such showing, so it denied the motion for leave to proceed IFP. The Court granted Plaintiff until March 31, 2023 to submit the $402.00 filing fee. The order provided that “[t]he failure to submit the fee by that date will result in the dismissal of this matter without prejudice and without additional prior notice.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee by the deadline set forth in the order and none of his filings demonstrate that he faces a threat of imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “authorizes a district court, upon a defendant's motion, to order the dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or ‘a court order.'” Young v. U.S., 316 Fed.Appx. 764, 771 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)). “This rule has been interpreted as permitting district courts to dismiss actions sua sponte when one of these conditions is met.” Id. (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)). “In addition, it is well established in this circuit that a district court is not obligated to follow any particular procedures when dismissing an action without prejudice under Rule 41(b).” Young, 316 Fed.Appx. at 771-72 (citations omitted).
The time in which Plaintiff was required to submit the filing fee has passed and he has not paid it. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with court orders.
IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.