a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with any court order
How later courts described this case
- 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 .
KEVIN ANDERSON, )
Plaintiff,
i No. 1:21-CV-159 SNLJ
PEMISCOT COUNTY JAIL; et al.,
Defendants. .
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Pretrial detainee Kevin Anderson
commenced this civil action with a letter to the Court dated October 28, 2021, complaining about
being assaulted by two jailers at the Pemiscot County Jail in Caruthersville, Missouri. ECF No. 1.
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, or
without prepaying fees and costs. ECF Nos. 4-5. However, on January 6, 2022, Plaintiff notified
the Court that he had been released on bond. ECF No. 10. As a result, the Court found that
Plaintiff's financial situation was no longer accurately represented by his inmate account
statement. As such, the Court denied Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis and directed
him to submit a new motion describing his current financial situation or pay the full filing fee.
ECF No. 11. In that same Order, the Court reviewed Plaintiff's amended complaint, finding legal
deficiencies but allowing him an opportunity to submit a second amended complaint to clarify his
claims. Jd. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the Order would
result in the dismissal of his case without further notice. Plaintiff's response was due by March
25,2022, 0
To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s Order, nor sought additional time to
do so. Local Rule 2.01 authorizes the Clerk of Court to refuse to receive any pleadings “until the
applicable statutory fee is paid, except in cases accompanied by a completed application to proceed
in forma pauperis.” E.D.Mo. L.R. 2.01(B)(1). Plaintiff had neither paid the filing fee nor
submitted a motion to proceed without prepayment. 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 23, 2022 Order and his
failure to prosecute his case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 US.
626, 630-31 (1962) (the authority ofa 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. □
Dated this MRL, day of April, 2022.
tot Z. Am A. Zs
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE