Costello v. Kansas Highway Patrol

CourtDistrict Court, D. Kansas
DecidedMay 19, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-03067
StatusUnknown

This text of Costello v. Kansas Highway Patrol (Costello v. Kansas Highway Patrol) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Related

Link v. Wabash Railroad
370 U.S. 626 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Olsen v. Mapes
333 F.3d 1199 (Tenth Circuit, 2003)
Young v. United States
316 F. App'x 764 (Tenth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Costello v. Kansas Highway Patrol, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costello-v-kansas-highway-patrol-ksd-2025.