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
JAMELL DAVIS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-00181-JSD
)
KELLY MORRISS, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Petitioner Jamell Davis
commenced this action by filing a document with this Court, construed as seeking relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See ECF Nos. 1 & 3. However, the document was defective as
a § 2254 petition because it was not drafted on a Court-provided form. As such, on April
16, 2025, the Court directed the Clerk to send Petitioner the Court form for § 2254
petitions and directed Petitioner to file an amended petition on that form within thirty
(30) days. ECF No. 3. Also in that Order, the Court warned Petitioner that he would not
be permitted to bring a second or successive § 2254 petition unless the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit certified that the second or successive petition
meets the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Id. at 3. The Court
cautioned Petitioner that his failure to timely comply with the Court’s Order would result
in the dismissal of his case. Petitioner’s response was due by May 16, 2025.
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 April 16, 2025 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 Petitioner’s motion, construed as an application
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [ECF No. 1] is DENIED and
DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of
counsel [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be
taken in good faith.
Dated this 9th day of June, 2025.
a q Lf
/ LID Z Stead cena ZL .
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.“
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE