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
EASTERN DIVISION
SIDNEY KEYS, SR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:24-cv-413 SRW
)
PRESBYTERIAN CHILDREN’S HOME )
AND SERVICES and LAURENCIA FORD )
STIKES, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. On May 16, 2024, the Court denied
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter because his motion did not comply
with the Local Rules of this Court or the federal statute under which it could be granted. ECF No.
6. However, the Court gave Plaintiff thirty (30) days to either file a new motion or pay the full
filing fee, if he wanted this action to proceed. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to
timely comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of this case without further notice. Id.
Plaintiff’s response was due by June 17, 2024.
To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s 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 Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court’s May 16, 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 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 FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF
No. 3] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 28th day of June, 2024.
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE