From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pizarro v. Hudson

United States District Court, District of Kansas
Feb 23, 2023
No. 23-3013-JWL (D. Kan. Feb. 23, 2023)

Opinion

23-3013-JWL

02-23-2023

MIGUEL PIZARRO, Plaintiff, v. (FNU) HUDSON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is a civil rights action. Plaintiff filed a complaint on January 17, 2023. On January 18, 2023, the Court issued a Notice of Deficiency (Doc. 2) ordering Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or to submit a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and to re-submit his complaint on court-approved forms. The clerk enclosed the required forms for a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and for a civil rights complaint. The deadline for Plaintiff to comply with the Notice of Deficiency was February 17, 2023. Plaintiff has not complied with the Notice of Deficiency.

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).

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's Notice of Deficiency by the Court's deadline. He has failed to submit his complaint on the court-approved form and has failed to either submit the filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. After a review of the record, the Court concludes this matter should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b). The dismissal shall be without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice allows Plaintiff to refile the action if he does so on the correct forms and either submits the filing fee or files a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with the requisite financial information, so long as the limitation period has not expired.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Pizarro v. Hudson

United States District Court, District of Kansas
Feb 23, 2023
No. 23-3013-JWL (D. Kan. Feb. 23, 2023)
Case details for

Pizarro v. Hudson

Case Details

Full title:MIGUEL PIZARRO, Plaintiff, v. (FNU) HUDSON, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, District of Kansas

Date published: Feb 23, 2023

Citations

No. 23-3013-JWL (D. Kan. Feb. 23, 2023)