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
YULE HOBSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-00651-SRW
)
KIM GARDNER, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented Plaintiff Yule
Hobson commenced this civil action in May 2025. [Doc. 1]. On August 19, 2025, the Court
denied Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of
counsel. [Doc. 4]. In that same Order, Plaintiff was directed to either pay the $405 filing fee or
file a new, complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his
failure to timely comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of his case without further
notice. [Id. at 3]. Plaintiff’s response was due by August 29, 2025.
To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s Order, nor sought additional time
to do so. Local Rule 2.01 authorizes the Clerk of Court to refuse to receive any pleadings “until
the applicable statutory fee is paid, except in cases accompanied by a completed application to
proceed in forma pauperis.” E.D.Mo. L.R. 2.01(B)(1). Plaintiff had neither paid the filing fee
nor submitted a complete motion to proceed without prepayment. 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
August 19, 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 plaintiffs failure to comply with any court order).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 8" day of September, 2025.
LE q Lf
[LPB frcbeah
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE