McGee v. Berkeley Police Department

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY CARR MCGEE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) No. 4:25-cv-00977-MTS ) BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Previously, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered him to pay the filing fee no later than September 17, 2025. Doc. [9] (denying Plaintiff the privilege of proceeding without prepaying the filing fee in this action based on multiple false statements Plaintiff made within his application). The Court expressly cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to timely pay the filing fee would “result in the dismissal of this action without further notice.” Id. at 3. To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or requested additional time to do so. Thus, Plaintiff has not only failed to pay the statutorily required filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), but he has also disregarded an order of this Court, see Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (explaining a district court has the power “to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order”); Hutchins v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 116 F.3d 1256, 1259 (8th Cir. 1997) (same). The Court therefore will dismiss this action at this time, without prejudice. Since the dismissal will be without prejudice, Plaintiff may refile this action in this Court. See Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d 372, 374 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). But, as the Court noted in its previous order, see Doc. [9], as a sanction for his false statements on his in forma pauperis motion, Plaintiff will not be allowed the privilege to proceed in forma pauperis on these claims—or a substantially equivalent claims—even if Plaintiff refiles this action. In other words, if Plaintiff files a new action alleging these same or similar claims, he will be required to prepay the filing fee, which currently is $405, in full at the time of filing. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign any refiling of this cause, or a substantially equivalent complaint, to the undersigned District Judge. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.08(A). A separate Order of Dismissal will be entered herewith. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). Dated this 23rd day of September 2025. Lye UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE