Opinion
23-3080-JWL
05-04-2023
STEVEN SCHANSTRA, Plaintiff, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Steven Schanstra is a state prisoner currently housed at the Montgomery County Jail in Independence, Kansas. He filed this pro se § 1983 action, alleging that his constitutional rights have been violated. (Doc. 1.) On March 24, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7.) On March 27, 2023, the Court issued a memorandum and order identifying deficiencies in the complaint that left it subject to dismissal and granting Plaintiff to and including April 27, 2023, to file an amended complaint that cures all the deficiencies. (Doc. 5.) The memorandum and order cautioned Plaintiff that if he “fails to timely file an amended complaint, the Court will proceed on the current complaint, which will be dismissed without further prior notice to Plaintiff for the reasons stated herein.” Id. at 7. The deadline to file the amended complaint has now passed and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint..
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).
Because the time to file an amended complaint has now passed without Plaintiff doing so, the Court concludes that this action should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. In addition, this action is subject to dismissal in the alternative for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, for the reasons set forth in the Court's previous memorandum and order.
IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.