Opinion
Case. 4:15-CV-00616-SRB
09-10-2015
WALTER P. WALKER, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF MIKE SHARP, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
On September 1, 2015, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), this Court conducted an initial review of the amended complaint Plaintiff Walter P. Walker sought to file in forma pauperis. The Court found that, even assuming Plaintiff is sufficiently impoverished, the Court would be unable to grant in forma pauperis status because the proposed complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. "The Eighth Circuit... has expressly ruled that SORNA's registration requirements do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause." Droney v. Fitch, No. 4:10-CV-114 CAS, 2011 WL 890704, at *5 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 14, 2011) aff'd, 423 F. App'x 669 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Bacon v. Neer, 631 F.3d 875, 878 (8th Cir. 2011); United State v. Zuniga, 579 F.3d 845, 849-50 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Baccam, 562 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. May, 535 F.3d 912, 918-22 (8th Cir. 2008)).
On September 1, 2015, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this cause of action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Under the Order, Plaintiff had until September 8, 2015, to respond to the Court's Order. Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond would result in the dismissal of this action. As of this date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's Order.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that this cause of action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Stephen R. Bough
STEPHEN R. BOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 10, 2015