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
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIE OLIVER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:23-cv-894 JMB
)
ANNE L. PRECYTHE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented Plaintiff Willie
Oliver brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, accusing Defendants of allowing inmates at the
Missouri Eastern Correctional Center to be restrained with plastic zip-ties for an excessive amount
of time. ECF No. 1. On October 3, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and assessed an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. ECF No. 8. However, because essential
sections of Plaintiff’s amended complaint were left blank, the Court could not determine whether
Plaintiff’s amended complaint survived initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. As such, the Court
ordered Plaintiff to file a completed second amended complaint within thirty (30) days if he wanted
this case to proceed. Id. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with that Order
would result in dismissal of this action.
Plaintiff’s response was due by November 2, 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 October 3, 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 13th day of November, 2023.
cept
RODNEY W. SIPPE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-