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 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
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMIE JONES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:25-cv-00783-JSD
)
KATIE THUMANN and THEARESA JONES, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order dated September 22, 2025, requiring
him to either submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee by October
22, 2025. ECF No. 5. 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 signed, 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. ECF No. 5 at 3.
The Court will therefore dismiss this action, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply
with the Court’s September 22, 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 plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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 13th day of November, 2025.
re □□ _
eye eee
CRISTIAN M. STEVENS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE