Jenkins (ID 2000077939) v. Hasenbank et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ROBERT TRAVIS JENKINS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 26-3013-JWL
RUSSEL WAYNE HASENBANK,
et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this pro se action on January 21, 2026. 	Plaintiff is incarcerated at the
Hutchinson Correctional Facility in Hutchinson, Kansas. The Court issued a Notice of Deficiency
(Doc. 2) because Plaintiff’s Complaint was not on the Court-approved form and Plaintiff failed to
either pay the filing fee or submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 	The Court
granted Plaintiff until February 20, 2026, to cure the deficiencies. On February 4, 2026, the Court
entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 4) (“M&O”) denying Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 3) seeking
an “Order of Praecipe.” The Court found that based on Plaintiff’s motion, it is unclear whether
Plaintiff intended to file a civil rights complaint, a petition for writ of habeas corpus, or a K.S.A.
§ 60-1501 action. The Court granted Plaintiff until February 20, 2026, in which to either: 1) submit
his § 1983 Complaint on the Court-approved form and submit the $405 filing fee or a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis; or 2) notify the Court that he intended to file a petition for
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or a state court petition under K.S.A. § 60-1501. Plaintiff
has failed to comply 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
),/('
86'LVWULFW&RXUW
'LVWULFWRI.DQVDV
&OHUN86'LVWULFW&RXUW
%\BBBBB'HSXW\&OHUN
02/24/2026
SND
Case 5:26-cv-03013-JWL Document 5 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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 comply with the Court’s M&O by the deadline.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT this matter is dismissed without prejudice
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated February 24, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-03013-JWL Document 5 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 2