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
LAWRENCE WALLACE-BEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:23-cv-143-NCC
)
DORIS FALKENRATH, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Prisoner Lawrence Wallace-Bey
commenced this civil action with a letter to the Court dated August 13, 2023, complaining about
conditions of confinement at Jefferson City Correctional Center. Doc. [1]. On September 6, 2023,
the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on a Court-provided
form, and to either pay the full filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepaying
fees and costs. Doc. [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 6, 2023.
On September 11, 2023, the Court received another letter from Plaintiff complaining about
lack of access to the “Law Library, medical, or religion.” Doc. [4]. The letter was dated the same
date as the Court’s Order to amend – September 6, 2023. Id. at 1. Therefore, since receiving the
Court’s Order, Plaintiff has neither responded to the 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 Plaintiffs failure to comply with the Court’s September 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 US.
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 25th day of October, 2023. □
Mi
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE