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
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
DILLONGER JOHN MAJORS, )
Plaintiff,
V. Case No. 1:24-cv-22 SNLJ
RICHARD TROUT, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented Plaintiff Dillonger
Majors brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging violations of his civil rights by seventeen (17)
defendants associated with the Southeast Correctional Center in Charleston, Missouri. ECF No.
1. On May 17, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and ordered him to file
an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. ECF No. 4. On June 17, 2024, the Court granted
Plaintiff an extension of time to file his amended complaint. ECF No. 6. The Court cautioned
Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply would result in the dismissal of this case without further
notice. Plaintiff's response was due by July 17, 2024.
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 Orders dated May 17 and June 17, 2024, 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 AWK day of July, 2024.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGHAR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE