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
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
DANIEL CAMPBELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:22-cv-141-SPM
)
MISSISSIPPI COUNTY and PROBATION )
& PAROLE, )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff Daniel Campbell
commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action, complaining about conditions of confinement at
the Mississippi County Detention Center. ECF No. 1. On February 6, 2023, the Court granted
Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and ordered an initial partial filing fee payment of $82.22. In
that same Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint within thirty (30)
days to cure pleading deficiencies. ECF No. 7. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to
timely comply with the Order could result in the dismissal of the case without further notice.
Plaintiff’s response was due by March 8, 2023.
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 February 6, 2023, 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 day of March, 2023.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE