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
SUPASTAR WARE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:25-cv-00488-SRW
)
ANNE PRECYTHE et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff Supastar Ware
commenced this civil action on April 11, 2025, alleging violations of her civil rights at Eastern
Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1). On June 12, 2025, the Court
directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and pay an initial filing fee of $14.00. (ECF No.
11). The Court cautioned Plaintiff that her 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 14,
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, she was cautioned that her
case would be dismissed if she failed to timely comply, and she 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 Order of June 12, 2025, 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 plaintiffs 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 22nd day of August, 2025.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE