a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with any court order
How later courts described this case
- a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with any court order
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
TIRRELL LAMAR GRIMSLEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:25-cv-00134-ACL
)
DEWY VEAK et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. On September 17, 2025, the Court
denied Plaintiff’s “Order Permitting Appeal In Forma Pauperis,” construed as a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis, because it failed to comply with the Local Rules of this Court and the federal
statute under which it could be granted. [See Docs. 2, 4]. In that denial, the Court directed Plaintiff
to either pay the full filing fee or submit a new, completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis
within thirty (30) days. [Doc. 4 at 3]. 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 4].
Plaintiff’s response was due by October 17, 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 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 Plaintiffs failure to comply with the Court’s September 17, 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 US.
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 plaintiff's 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 4" day of November, 2025.
| LGDE furtcagh I |
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE