Cartwright v. Minot, City of

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA Walter William Cartwright, III, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ) vs. ) ) City of Minot, et al., ) Case No. 1:24-cv-096 ) Defendants. ) Plaintiff initiated the above-captioned action pro se and in forma pauperis by Complaint in May 2024 against the City of Minot (hereafter referred to as the “City”) as well as the following employees of the Minot Police Department in their individual capacities: Ashley Olson, Kristian Shaide, Jared Foley, Jordan Fruehlich, Officer Sumlin, Officer Zifchock, Officer Corey, Officer Boles, Officer Talbot, and an officer with the login ID of “jebabcock.” (Doc., No. 5). On June 6, 2024, he filed notice of his consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 6). The court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint as mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Finding that Plaintiff’s Complaint was devoid of any cognizable claims, the court issued a screening order on June 7, 2024, giving Plaintiff a deadline of July 1, 2024, to file an Amended Complaint addressing his original Complaint’s deficiencies or otherwise show cause why this matter should not be dismissed. (Doc. No. 7). The July 1, 2024, deadline has now come and gone and Plaintiff has made no demonstrable effort to address his original Complaint’s deficiencies and comply with this court’s June 7, 2024, order. Accordingly, the above-captioned action is DISMISSED for the reasons discussed in the court’s screening order. (Doc. No. 7). Plaintiff is assessed a strike for purposes of the Prison 1 Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also McCreary v. Cox, No. 07-11478, 2007 WL 2050268, at *1 (E.D. Mich. 2007) (“The Court may sua sponte raise the three strikes provision of the PLRA on its own initiative.”). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 22nd day of July, 2024. /s/ Clare R. Hochhalter Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge United States District Court