Brass v. Bunting

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

KYLE BRASS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 25-3109-JWL

GARY BUNTING, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action on January 29, 2024, in the District Court of Douglas County, Kansas. (Doc. 1–1.) The matter was removed to this Court on June 3, 2025, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. (Doc. 1.) At the time of removal, Plaintiff was in custody at the Douglas County Jail in Lawrence, Kansas (“DCJ”). On June 6, 2025, the Clerk entered an order (Doc. 4) extending the answer deadline in this case; and on June 12, 2025, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 5) staying the answer deadline until the Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint. Both orders were mailed to Plaintiff at the DCJ—his current address of record—and were returned as undeliverable. (Docs. 6, 7.) The docket entry for Doc. 6 indicates that Plaintiff is not in custody at the DCJ according to www.dgso.org. (Doc. 6.) On July 29, 2025, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 8) (“OSC”) ordering Plaintiff to show good cause why this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution. The deadline to respond was August 19, 2025. The OSC was returned as undeliverable. (Doc. 9.) 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 F. App’x 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 F. App’x at 771–72 (citations omitted). Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a Notice of Change of Address and has failed to respond to the OSC by the Court’s deadline. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT this matter is dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated August 20, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas. S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE