Opinion

Hickmon v. Packaging Concepts, Inc.

Court
District Court, E.D. Missouri
Filed
Apr 20, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.0%

the authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution is inherent power governed “by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”

How later courts described this case

  • the authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution is inherent power governed “by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”
  • a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiffs failure to comply with any court order

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

FORT HICKMON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 4:19-CV-2757 AGF

)

PACKAGING CONCEPTS, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff Fort Hickmon commenced

this civil action for employment discrimination on October 10, 2019, by filing a civil complaint

against his former employer and three of its employees. ECF No. 1. On February 11, 2020, the

Court granted plaintiff in forma pauperis status and reviewed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2). ECF No. 4. The Court found multiple problems with plaintiff’s complaint but allowed

plaintiff an opportunity to cure the pleading deficiencies by filing an amended complaint in

compliance with the Court’s instructions. The Court cautioned plaintiff that his failure to timely

comply with the Court’s Order could result in the dismissal of his case. Plaintiff’s response was

due by March 12, 2020.

To date, plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s order, nor sought additional time to

do so. Plaintiff was given meaningful notice of what was expected, he was cautioned that his case

would be dismissed if he failed to timely comply, and he was given ample time to comply. The

Court will therefore dismiss this action, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with

the Court’s February 11, 2020, Order and his failure to prosecute his case. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (the authority of a court to

dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution is inherent power governed “by the control necessarily

vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition

of cases”); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the power to

dismiss an action for the plaintiffs failure to comply with any court order).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate

order of dismissal will be entered herewith.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in

good faith.

Dated this 20th day of April, 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.