UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION JEFFREY S. AMICK, ) Plaintiff, v. No. 4:20-CV-0094 RLW JOHN CARTER, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On June 23, 2020, the Court directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Docket No. 3). Plaintiff has failed to comply. Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Background Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who filed this civil action on January 21, 2020. He named the following defendants: John Carter; Eric Fogleman; Brian Ketcherside; the City of St. Louis Electrical Permit and Inspection Division; Barb Potts; John Does #1-3; the City of St. Louis Towing Division; Joe Unknown; and Southwestern Electric. The complaint was ninety-six pages long, including attachments. In the “Statement of Claim,” plaintiff alleged that the defendants took various actions that kept him from using and improving a property he owned in St. Louis, Missouri. Because plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court reviewed his complaint pursuant to

. On June 23, 2020, the Court directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (Docket No. 3). In so doing, the Court noted that plaintiff's complaint was subject to dismissal because it did not contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that” he was

entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff was given thirty days in which to file an amended complaint. He was advised that failure to respond would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice. Discussion As stated above, on June 23, 2020, the Court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. The amended complaint was due on July 23, 2020. In the order, plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice. The deadline for plaintiff to file his amended complaint has expired. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint as directed. Further, he has not filed a motion with the Court seeking an extension of time in which to comply. Under Rule 41(b), an action may be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See also Brown v. Frey,

(8" Cir. 1986) (stating that district court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s action for failure to comply with a court order on its own initiative). Because plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order of June 23, 2020, or filed any type of motion seeking an extension of time in which to comply, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s order of June 23, 2020. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith.

Syl. RONNIE L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated nin ITS. of July, 2020.