# Hawkins v. Monsanto Company

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · October 7, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11158809

## Case

- **Full name:** Edward Hawkins and James Neises v. Monsanto Company, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** October 7, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11158809

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11158809. Public record. Not legal advice.