Opinion

Otte v. Randolph County

Court
District Court, E.D. Missouri
Filed
Nov 4, 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 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

NORTHERN DIVISION

SHAWN OTTE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 2:22-CV-66 CDP

)

RANDOLPH COUNTY, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff Shawn Otte commenced

this civil action by filing a letter alleging that his arrest was unconstitutional and complaining about

his conditions of confinement at Randolph County Jail. See ECF No. 1. On September 19, 2022,

the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on a court-provided form, and to either

pay the filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See ECF No. 3. The

Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the Order would result in the

dismissal of his case without further notice. Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s response was due by October 19,

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 September 19, 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 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.

Dated this 4th day of November, 2022.

CATHERINE D. PERRY

UNITED 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.