District Court, D. Kansas, 2026

Brian Michael Waterman v. Wendy Leiker, et al.

Brian Michael Waterman v. Wendy Leiker, et al.
District Court, D. Kansas · Decided March 13, 2026
Brian Michael Waterman v. Wendy Leiker, et al.

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

BRIAN MICHAEL WATERMAN, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 26-3023-JWL WENDY LEIKER, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Ellsworth Correctional Facility in Ellsworth, Kansas. On February 11, 2026, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 2) (“M&O”) finding that Plaintiff is subject to the “three- strikes” provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and denying Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

The Court granted Plaintiff until March 11, 2026, to submit the $405 filing fee. The M&O provides that “[t]he failure to respond by the deadline will result in the dismissal of this matter without prejudice and without additional prior notice.” (Doc. 2, at 6.) Plaintiff has failed to respond or to pay the filing fee by the Court’s deadline.

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).

Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee by the deadline set forth in the Court’s order. 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 ORDERED BY THE COURT that this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated March 13, 2026, 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.