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
JADA BEY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) No. 4:25-cv-678-AGF
)
KATHERYN THURMANN, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Petitioner Jada Bey commenced
this civil action on May 9, 2025, by filing a document titled “Response to Court Order: June 2,
2023 – Davis-BEY V. COLE BREWER – 23-cv-507-HEA.” (ECF No. 1). The Court interpreted
this filing as a habeas corpus petition. However, the filing was defective because it was not
drafted on a Court form. Further, Petitioner did not pay a filing fee or request to proceed in forma
pauperis. As such, on June 25, 2025, the Court directed Petitioner to file an amended petition on
a Court form. (Id.) The Court also directed Petitioner to either pay the filing fee or file a motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2). The Court cautioned Petitioner 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 25, 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, 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 Petitioner’s
failure to comply with the Court’s June 25, 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 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