Costello v. Kansas Highway Patrol

D. Kansas

Costello v. Kansas Highway Patrol

District Court, D. Kansas·Decided May 19, 2025·No. 5:25-cv-03067·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

FRANCIS LEE COSTELLO,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 25-3067-JWL

KANSAS HIGHWAY PATROL, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 29, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $9.50, calculated under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). (Doc. 5.) The order provides that the failure to pay the initial partial filing fee or file an objection by May 13, 2025, “may result in the dismissal of this matter without further notice.” Id. Plaintiff has failed to pay the fee or file an objection by the Court’s deadline. 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 submit the initial partial filing fee or to file an objection 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 FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 7) is

denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated May 19, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas. S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

FRANCIS LEE COSTELLO,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 25-3067-JWL

KANSAS HIGHWAY PATROL, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 29, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $9.50, calculated under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). (Doc. 5.) The order provides that the failure to pay the initial partial filing fee or file an objection by May 13, 2025, “may result in the dismissal of this matter without further notice.” Id. Plaintiff has failed to pay the fee or file an objection by the Court’s deadline. 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 submit the initial partial filing fee or to file an objection 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 FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 7) is

denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated May 19, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas. S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Costello v. Kansas Highway Patrol, (D. Kan. 2025).

Pincite

Costello v. Kansas Highway Patrol (Costello v. Kansas Highway Patrol) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related