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
QUINCY BAISDEN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:23-cv-896 HEA
)
ANNE L. PRECYTHE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented Plaintiff Quincy
Baisden brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF Nos. 1, 4.
On October 5, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
assessed an initial partial filing fee. ECF No. 6. The Court also found the amended complaint to
be subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for three reasons: (1) Plaintiff did not provide
a Statement of Claim as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) his official
capacity claim against the warden of a state facility was not cognizable under § 1983 and barred
by Eleventh Amendment immunity; and (3) his individual capacity claim against the Director of
the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) failed as he did not present any facts
demonstrating her personal responsibility.1 As such, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a 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.
1 Plaintiff’s amended complaint clearly named Warden Gregory Hancock in his official capacity only and Director
Anne L. Precythe in her individual capacity only. See ECF No. 4 at 2-3.
Plaintiffs response was due by November 4, 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 additional time. The Court will therefore dismiss this action, without
prejudice, due to Plaintiffs failure to comply with the Court’s October 5, 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 7 day of December, 2023.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 The Court notes that, on October 11, 2023, plaintiff mailed a copy of his “Offender Grievance Appeal” and the
MDOC’s “Grievance Appeal Response” to this Court, but it was not accompanied by an amended complaint. The
Order directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint did not instruct him to submit these documents.
-2-