“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘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 has generally been considered an ‘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.”
- stating that a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
ERIC TYRONNE LAWRENCE, )
)
Movant, )
)
v. ) No. 1:20-CV-174 AGF
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented movant Eric
Tyronne Lawrence commenced this action on August 14, 2020, by filing a letter with the Court
asking that his criminal case be reviewed. The letter was originally filed in movant’s criminal
case, as the letter contained that case number. See United States v. Lawrence, No. 1:14-CR-30-
AGF, ECF No. 63. However, the Court administratively terminated the motion in the criminal
case and directed the Clerk to open a new case under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id. at ECF No. 64. That
Order resulted in the instant case.
Although it was apparent from his letter that movant sought to file a Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, movant did not use the proper form as required
by the Local Rules of this Court. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.06(A) (requiring all actions by self-
represented litigants to be filed on Court-provided forms). In addition, movant’s filing was not
drafted in a manner that complied with the Federal Rules. As such, the Court ordered movant to
file an amended motion to vacate on the proper Court form and provided some basic instructions
for compliance with the local and Federal Rules. ECF No. 2. The Court cautioned movant that
his failure to timely comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of his case without further
notice. Movant’s response was due on October 2, 2020.
To date, movant has neither responded to the Court’s Order nor sought additional time to
do so. The only filing by the movant since the Court issued its Order was a request for a copy of
the docket sheet in this matter. ECF No. 3. Movant 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 movant’s failure to comply with the Court’s September 2, 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 has generally
been considered an ‘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.”);
Dudley v. Miles, 597 F. App’x 392 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal without
prejudice where self-represented plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint despite being
cautioned that dismissal could result from failure to do so); Fitzwater v. Ray, 352 F. App’x 125,
126 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing action
without prejudice when the self-represented plaintiffs failed to comply with an order directing
them to file an amended complaint within fourteen days); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th
Cir. 1986) (stating that a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s 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 19thday of October 2020.
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE