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
CHARLES TYLER THOMPSON, SR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:25-cv-00044-SNLJ
)
LT. JERRY WALLS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff Charles Tyler
Thompson, Sr. commenced this civil action on March 3, 2025, alleging violations of his
civil rights by two correctional officers at Southeast Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1).
On June 18, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, and directed him to pay an initial filing fee of $70.80.
(ECF No. 6). The Court further found Plaintiff’s complaint was defective and directed
him to file an amended complaint. (Id.). The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to
timely comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of the case without further
notice. (Id.) Plaintiff’s response was due by July 18, 2025.
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 June 18, 2025 Order and
her failure to prosecute her 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.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be
taken in good faith.
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 20" day of August, 2025.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE