“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.”
- 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
CATHERINE ANN KRAMER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:20-cv-01621 SRC
)
HENRY INDUSTRIES, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
Memorandum and Order
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff Catherine Ann Kramer
commenced this employment discrimination action on November 16, 2020, by filing a complaint
under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., against her former
employer Henry Industries, Inc. On February 8, 2021, the Court entered an Order directing Kramer
to file an amended motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee. Doc.
12. As explained in the Court’s Order, Kramer’s pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 2) does not comply with the Local Rules of this Court or the federal statute under which it
may be granted because Kramer provided incomplete answers to the form questions. The Court
cautioned Kramer that her failure to timely comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of
her case.
Kramer’s response was due by March 1, 2021. To date, however, Kramer has neither
responded to the Court’s Order, nor sought additional time to do so. Kramer 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 Kramer’s failure to comply with the Court’s February 8, 2021 Order, and
her failure to prosecute her 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.”); 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, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice. An order of dismissal will
be entered separately. The Court denies Kramer’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
Doc. 2, as moot. The Court certifies that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good
faith.
So Ordered this 17th day of March 2021.
‘visas fe Se
STEPHENR.CLARK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE