Whether a district court's dismissal with prejudice of a pro se civil rights action for willful disobedience of court orders violates the plaintiffs' constitutional due process rights

No question identified. : L€@Avueto Ale hardship sustained, Petitioners motion Court for additional time in to file because there is no other way to get relief an “Extraordinary Writ” the denial of the United States Constitutional Rights by the Lower Courts, enclosed is the opinion, November 16, 2023, to be reviewed and invoked Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Because of financial difficulties and notably Supreme Court Rule 13.5’s, 10-day extension window extension pray to be granted. Johnnie L. Ball, pro se 10400 Saint Ives Drive Saint Louis Mo., 63136 314-378-4970 vivian. houston64@gmail.com Gnited States Court of Appeals For the Cighth Circuit No. 23-2644 Vivian Houston; Johnnie L. Ball Plaintiffs Appellants v. Christopher Klaverkamp; Scott Amos Defendants Appellees Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri St. Louis Submitted: November 13, 2023 Filed: November 16, 2023 (Unpublished] Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Vivian Houston and Johnnie Ball appeal following the district court’s' withprejudice dismissal of their civil rights action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 'The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 23-2644 Page:1 Date Filed: 11/16/2023 Entry ID: 5336213 Procedure 41(b). Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for willful disobedience of court orders. See Smith v. Gold Dust Casino, 526 F.3d 402, 404-05 (8th Cir. 2008). We likewise discern no abuse of discretion in the denial of appellants’ post-judgment motions. See Akpovi v. Douglas, 43 F.4th 832, 837 (8th Cir. 2022); Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 506 F.3d 1, 1117 (8th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. -2Appellate Case: 23-2644 Page:2 Date Filed: 11/16/2023 Entry ID: 5336213 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No: 23-2644 Vivian Houston; Johnnie L. Ball Plaintiffs Appellants v. Christopher Klaverkamp; Scott Amos Defendants Appellees Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri St. Louis (4:22-ev-00371-RLW) JUDGMENT Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. This appeal from the United States District Court was submitted on the record of the district court and briefs of the parties. After consideration, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the district court in this cause is affirmed in accordance with the opinion of this Court. November 16, 2023 Order Entered in Accordance with Opinion: Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. /s/ Michael E. Gans Appellate Case: 23-2644 Page:1 Date Filed: 11/16/2023 Entry ID: 5336215 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No: 23-2644 Vivian Houston and Johnnie L. Ball Appellants v. Christopher Klaverkamp and Scott Amos Appellees Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri St. Louis (4:22-cv-00371-RLW) ORDER The petition for rehearing by the panel is denied. December 11, 2023 Order Entered at the Direction of the Court: Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, /s/ Michael E. Gans