Woods v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

DEBORAH WOODS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-00868-MTS ) CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 25, 2025, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Doc. [40], was subject to dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii). The Court gave forty-five days in which to file a Second Amended Complaint that, addressing the deficiencies raised in the Memorandum and Order, would “sufficiently state a claim for relief.” Doc. [53] at 13. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply “may result in dismissal of this action without further notice.” Id. Plaintiff’s deadline to file an amended complaint was Monday, September 08, 2025, and she has not sought additional time in which to comply. Because the Court gave Plaintiff meaningful notice of what was expected, cautioned her regarding the consequences of her failure to comply, and gave her a reasonable amount of time in which to do so, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Court’s Order to amend her complaint and for her failure to prosecute this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with any court order); Dudley v. Miles, 597 F. App’x 392 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal without prejudice where self-represented plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint despite being cautioned that dismissal could result from failure to do so). The Court will enter a separate Order of Dismissal herewith. Dated this 18th day of September 2025. {uy T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-