District Court, D. Kansas, 2025

Vela (ID 107219) v. Shavely

Vela (ID 107219) v. Shavely
District Court, D. Kansas · Decided May 2, 2025
Vela (ID 107219) v. Shavely

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

GUILLERMO VELA, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 25-3034-JWL (FNU) SHAVELY, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Guillermo Vela began this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by filing a complaint on February 27, 2025. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff’s motion was not on the required form and he failed to either pay the filing fee or submit a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees, so on February 28, 2025, the Court issued a notice of deficiency (NOD) informing Plaintiff that he was required to correct the deficiencies within 30 days. (Doc. 2.) The NOD further advised Plaintiff that if he “fail[ed] to comply within the prescribed time, . . . this action may be dismissed without further notice for failure to comply with this court order.” Id. at 1. The deadline for compliance with the NOD was March 31, 2025. On March 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to comply with the NOD (Doc.

3), which the Court granted, extending the deadline for compliance to April 30, 2025. (Doc. 4.)

The deadline set has now passed and Plaintiff has not complied with the NOD, nor has he filed anything 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 NOD 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated on this 2nd day of May, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas. s/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM United States District Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.