Price v. Third Judicial District of Kansas

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JOHN TIMOTHY PRICE,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 25-3053-JWL

THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF KANSAS, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff John Timothy Price is currently in custody at the Douglas County Jail in Lawrence, Kansas. Plaintiff filed this § 1983 action against the Third and Seventh Judicial Districts of Kansas, alleging issues involving taxes on telecommunications devices, internet access, and electronic commerce. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also claims that the there is an improper grievance system because there is no proper way to use the form provided in the facility. On March 28, 2025, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 3) (“M&O”) denying Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, finding Plaintiff is subject to the “three- strikes” provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court examined the Complaint and found no showing of imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court granted Plaintiff until April 25, 2025, to submit the $405.00 filing fee. The M&O provides that “[t]he failure to submit the fee by that date will result in the dismissal of this matter without prejudice and without additional prior notice.” (Doc. 3, at 2.) Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee by the deadline set forth in the M&O. 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 pay the filing fee by the deadline set forth in the Court’s order. As a consequence, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with court orders. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated April 28, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas. S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE