Porter v. Dole et al

1
I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RAYVON PORTER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3190-JWL
(FNU) DOLE, ET AL.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is a pro se civil action that began on September 16, 2025, when the Court received a
complaint (Doc. 1) and a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fees (Doc. 2)
from Plaintiff Rayvon Porter. (Doc. 1.) The same day, the Court issued a notice of deficiency (NOD)
advising Plaintiff that the financial information submitted in support of his motion for leave to proceed
without prepayment of the filing fees did not comply with the statutory requirements. (Doc. 3.) The
NOD directed Plaintiff to submit the required information on or before October 16, 2025. Id. at 2. The
NOD expressly 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. As of the
date of this order, the Court has received nothing further from Plaintiff.
The deadline set in the NOD 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
Case 5:25-cv-03190-JWL Document 5 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 2

2
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. The motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 2) is therefore denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated on this 3rd day of November, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-03190-JWL Document 5 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 2