‘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.”
- 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
- 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
BEVERLY ANN JACKSON-MCDONALD, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:20-CV-1291 CDP
)
MERS GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff initiated this case on
September 21, 2020, by filing a complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
On December 22, 2020, the Court granted the motion and reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). ECF No. 7. The Court found that plaintiff had not adequately alleged claims
to withstand review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). However, because plaintiff is self-represented,
the Court gave her an opportunity to cure her pleading deficiencies by filing an amended
complaint. In the Order directing amendment, the Court clearly explained why the complaint was
subject to dismissal, gave plaintiff clear instructions about how to prepare the amended complaint,
and cautioned her that failure to timely comply with the Order would result in dismissal.
Plaintiff’s response was due by January 21, 2021. To date, however, 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, she was cautioned that her case would be dismissed if she failed to
timely comply, and she was given ample time to comply. Therefore, this action will be dismissed
without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s December 22, 2020 Order
and her 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) (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); Brown vy. Frey, 806 F.2d 801,
803-04 (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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 10th day of February, 2021.