Opinion

Stuart v. Warren County Sheriff's Dept.

Court
District Court, E.D. Missouri
Filed
Jul 11, 2022
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.2%

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”

How later courts described this case

  • 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”
  • 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

EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL STUART, )

Plaintiff,

Vv. ; No. 4:22-CV-309 JAR

WARREN COUNTY SHERIFF’S ;

DEPARTMENT, et al., )

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented plaintiff Michael

Stuart commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action in March 2022, alleging deliberately

indifferent medical care for his type II diabetes while confined at the Warren County Jail. ECF

No. 1. On May 25, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, directed him to pay an initial partial filing fee of $1.00, and ordered him to file a second

amended complaint within thirty (30) days. ECF No. 5. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his

failure to timely comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of the case without further

notice. Plaintiff's response was due on June 24, 2022.

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 Plaintiff's failure to comply with

the Court’s May 25, 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 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.

Dated this Lay of July, 2022.

eee

ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.