Walker (ID 128454) v. Douglas County, Kansas, Board of County Commissioners

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

VINCENT LEE WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 23-3176-JWL

DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, Vincent Lee Walker, is confined at the Douglas County Jail in Lawrence, Kansas (“DCJ”). Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that he made multiple requests for a “New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures Bible with the silver lining,” but he did not receive any Bible at all. The Court entered an order (Doc. 2) 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 also granted Plaintiff until August 18, 2023, to submit the $402.00 filing fee. The Court’s order provided 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. 2, at 2.) The Order was returned to the Court on August 7, 2023, and remailed to Plaintiff at his current address. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff has not responded to the order. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee by the deadline set forth in the order. 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). The time in which Plaintiff was required to submit the filing fee has passed. Plaintiff has not made the “specific, credible allegations of imminent danger of serious physical harm” required to meet the exception. Hafed v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 635 F.3d 1172, 1179 (10th Cir. 2011). 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 BY THE COURT ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated September 11, 2023, in Kansas City, Kansas.

S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE