Aich v. State of Kansas

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JESSE JOSEPH AICH,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 26-3072-JWL
STATE OF KANSAS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil action. 	Plaintiff is in custody at the Reno County
Correctional Facility in Hutchinson, Kansas. Plaintiff claims that he is bringing this action under
the False Claims Act and named the State of Kansas as the sole defendant.1 (Doc. 1, at 1.)
On March 30, 2026, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 4) (“M&O”)
denying Plaintiff’s first motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, finding that Plaintiff is
subject to the “three-strikes” provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 	The Court examined the
Complaint and attachments and found no showing of imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The Court also found that the claims appear to be frivolous. 	The Court granted Plaintiff until
April 30, 2026, to submit the $405.00 filing fee. The Court also denied Plaintiff’s second motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis for the same reasons set forth in the M&O. (Doc. 9.) The
Court’s order denying the second motion provides that “the Court-ordered April 30, 2026 deadline
to submit the $405.00 filing fee remains in effect. The failure to submit the fee by that date will
result in the dismissal of this matter without prejudice and without additional prior notice.” Id. at
2.) Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee by the Court’s deadline.
1 Plaintiff filed a one-page document titled “Amended Complaint 1) to Add Defendant 2) to Add Relief.” (Doc. 8.)
He added the 27th Judicial District as a defendant and added a request to dismiss his state criminal cases “with extreme
prejudice.” Id.
Case 5:26-cv-03072-JWL Document 10 Filed 05/04/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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 May 4, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-03072-JWL Document 10 Filed 05/04/26 Page 2 of 2