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
DESMOND GREER, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) No. 4:24-cv-01233-SPM
)
KELLY MORRISS, )
)
Respondent. )
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Petitioner Desmond Greer
commenced this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action on September 11, 2024. ECF No. 1. On
September 24, 2024, the Court directed Petitioner to file a signed amended petition, on a Court-
provided form, within thirty (30) days. ECF No. 5. The Court cautioned Petitioner that his failure
to timely comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of the case without further notice.
Id. at 1. Petitioner’s response was due by October 24, 2024.
To date, Petitioner has neither responded to the Court’s Order, nor sought additional time
to do so. Petitioner 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 Petitioner’s failure to
comply with the Court’s September 24, 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); Rule 12 of
the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (stating that the “Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions
or these rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules”).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure
to comply with the Court’s Order of September 24, 2024. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A separate
order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot.
Dated this 12™ day of November, 2024.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE