# Valentin v. Sentry Security

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · October 17, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10652294

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** October 17, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10652294

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JOSE A. DE LEON VALENTIN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) No. 4:24-cv-00626-SEP
)
SENTRY SECURITY and )
THE CLUB ST. LOUIS, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On July 12, 2024, the Court denied self-represented Plaintiff Jose De Leon Valentin’s
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Doc. [4]. In that
denial, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a new application with complete answers or pay
the full filing fee. Id. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the
Order would result in the dismissal of his case without further notice. Plaintiff’s response was
due by August 12, 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 has 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. Therefore, this action is dismissed for failure
to comply with a Court order and failure to prosecute. 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 has generally been considered an ‘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 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) 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, Doc.
[2], is DENIED as moot.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 17th day of October, 2024. □□ Ly
So hat | fithyas
SARAH E. PITLYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10652294. Public record. Not legal advice.