# Spears v. Francsis

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · October 4, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10235837

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** October 4, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10235837

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JERMAIN L. SPEARS, )
Plaintiff,
Vv. No. 4:21-CV-929 JAR
DANELL FRANCSIS, .
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff Jermain Spears
commenced this civil action on July 28, 2021, by filing a handwritten Complaint brought under 42
U.S.C, § 1983 against Danell Francsis, Warden at Potosi Correctional Center. ECF No. 1.
However, Plaintiff neither paid the filing fee nor sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis, On
August 9, 2021, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty (30) days. ECF No. 2. The Court
cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the Order would result in the dismissal
of his case without further notice. Plaintiffs response was due by September 8, 2021.
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 plaintiffs failure to comply with
the Court’s August 9, 2021 Order and his failure to prosecute his case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
see also Link vy. Wabash RR. 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 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.
et
Dated this se day of October, 2021.

wi fe ue __—
D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE □

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10235837. Public record. Not legal advice.