Opinion

Hawkins v. Monsanto Company

Court
District Court, E.D. Missouri
Filed
Oct 7, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 35.2%

“The district court has inherent power, acting on its own initiative, to dismiss a cause of action with prejudice for failure to prosecute.”

How later courts described this case

  • “The district court has inherent power, acting on its own initiative, to dismiss a cause of action with prejudice for failure to prosecute.”
  • “A district court has the power under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order” and may do so “on its own initiative.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

EDWARD HAWKINS, and )

JAMES NEISES, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. ) Case No. 1:20-cv-00132-SNLJ

)

MONSANTO COMPANY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on an Order to Show Cause. [Doc. 19]. Plaintiff

James Neises’s counsel was granted leave to withdraw on July 6, 2021. [Doc. 9]. Since

then, Neises has neither filed pleadings nor appeared through counsel. Co-plaintiff

Edward Hawkins pursued his claims and, following a settlement, dismissed the claims

with prejudice on August 19, 2025. [Docs. 14, 15]. On September 23, 2025, the Court

ordered Neises to show cause by October 6, 2025 why this case should not be dismissed

with prejudice for failure to prosecute. [Doc. 19]. The Court warned Neises that failure

to comply with the Order to Show Cause would result in a dismissal with prejudice

without further notice. [Id. at 2].

The deadline for Neises to respond to the Order to Show Cause has passed. He

has neither responded nor requested additional time to do so. Therefore, for the reasons

stated in the Court’s Order to Show [Doc. 19] and herein, Neises’s claims are dismissed

with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order. See

Garrison v. International Paper Co., 714 F.2d 757, 759 (8th Cir. 1983) (“The district

court has inherent power, acting on its own initiative, to dismiss a cause of action with

prejudice for failure to prosecute.”); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (“A

district court has the power under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) to dismiss an action for the

plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order” and may do so “on its own initiative.”).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff James Neises’s claims against all

defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be

entered.

SO ORDERED this 7th day of October, 2025.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, “

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.