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
EASTERN DIVISION
THE ESTATE OF )
JOSHUA CHARLES DAVIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:23-CV-1443 RLW
)
THE UNITED STATES OF )
AMERICA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of the file. On March 6, 2024, the Court issued
an Order in this case giving plaintiff the Estate of Joshua Charles Davis’s personal representative,
Jack Davis, thirty (30) days to file a new motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a signed
amended complaint, as the real party in interest in this matter. ECF No. 4. The Court cautioned
that failure to timely comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of this case without
further notice. Id. at 9. Davis’s response was due by April 5, 2024.
On March 27, 2024, the Court received a letter from Davis, captioned with the case number
for this matter. ECF No. 6. In the letter, Davis states that he has “lost all interest in moving
forward” and “shall no longer waste [his] time” attempting to seek justice for his son. Id. at 2-3.
Plaintiff attached multiple documents to his letter, including some of the filings from this case, but
he did not include a new motion to proceed in forma pauperis or a signed amended complaint on
the Court-provided forms. See id. at 4-35. It is unclear if Davis intended this letter to be a notice
of dismissal of this matter.
Regardless, to date, Davis has not responded to the Court’s March 6, 2024 Order, or sought
additional time to do so. Davis 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 Davis’s
failure to comply with the Court’s March 6, 2024 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 15th day of April, 2024.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE