Sims v. Milosh

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: September 15, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-10371
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Kenneth Conrad Sims,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-10371 Honorable Linda V. Parker v.

Milosh, et al.,

Defendants. _________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Kenneth Conrad Sims, a prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No.1.) He also filed an application to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. (ECF No. 2.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), a prisoner seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis must submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. Because Sims did not submit a certified trust fund account statement, the Court ordered him to do so within thirty days and cautioned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the case without prejudice. (ECF No. 6.) In response to the deficiency order, Sims filed a second application to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. (ECF No. 5.) He did not submit the required trust fund account statement. The time for correcting the deficiency has long since passed.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) gives the district court power to dismiss a complaint where “the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules] or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). This rule provides the

Court a tool to effectively manage its docket. Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 362-63 (6th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Sims did not comply with the deficiency order despite ample time and notice that noncompliance would result in dismissal. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice. See May

v. Pike Lake State Park, 8 F. App’x 507, 508 (6th Cir. 2001) (affirming dismissal of case for lack of prosecution where pro se litigant failed to comply with “readily comprehended” order).

For these reasons, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: September 15, 2025 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, September 15, 2025, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class mail.

s/Aaron Flanigan Case Manager