Ryan Christopher Cheatham v. Tim Easley, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Kansas
• Decided: November 13, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-03218
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

RYAN CHRISTOPHER CHEATHAM,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 25-3218-JWL

TIM EASLEY , et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This is a pro se civil action brought by Plaintiff Ryan Christopher Cheatham, a state prisoner incarcerated at El Dorado Correctional Facility (“EDCF”) in El Dorado, Kansas. It began on October 9, 2025, when the Court received from Plaintiff a complaint (Doc. 1), a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), and a motion for an order directing EDCF to provide him with the account statement required to support his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3). The following day, the Court issued a memorandum and order (“M&O”) denying the motion for an order directing EDCF to provide Plaintiff with the account statement. (Doc. 4.) The M&O granted Plaintiff to and including November 10, 2025 in which to either pay the full $405.00 filing fee or submit the required account statement. Id. at 2-3. It also advised Plaintiff that if he “experiences difficulty obtaining the account statement, he should so inform the Court, in writing and prior to the deadline for compliance with this order.” Id. at 2. The M&O clearly cautioned Plaintiff: “The failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this matter without further prior notice to Plaintiff.” Id. The deadline set in the M&O has now passed and Plaintiff has filed nothing further in this matter. Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may dismiss an action “if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); See also Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (noting that Rule 41(b) “has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure . . . to comply with the . . . court’s orders”). Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the M&O and has failed to file anything further in this matter, the Court concludes that this matter should be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT this matter is dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is therefore denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated on this 13th day of November, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas. s/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM United States District Judge