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
BRETT MICHAELS CHILTON, )
)
Movant, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:25-cv-00178-SNLJ
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Self-represented Movant Brett Michaels Chilton commenced this action by filing a
handwritten document titled “Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence,” seeking relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Doc. 1]. However, the document was defective as a § 2255 motion
because it was not drafted on a Court-provided form. As such, on December 5, 2025, the Court
directed the Clerk to send Movant the Court form for §2255 motions and directed Movant to file
an amended motion on the Court form within thirty (30) days. [Doc. 2]. The Court warned
Movant that his failure to timely comply with the Court’s Order would result in the dismissal of
his case, without prejudice and without further notice. [Id.] Movant’s response was due by
January 5, 2026.
To date, Movant has neither responded to the Court’s order, nor sought additional time to
do so.1 Movant 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.
1 The Court acknowledges that Movant Chilton sent in a letter and two motions, received by the Court on January
15, 2026. [See Doc. 3]. Because these documents did not comply with the Local Rules, they were rejected for filing
and returned to Movant. [Id.] Regardless, none of these documents were on a Court-provided form and therefore
were not in compliance with the Court’s January 5, 2025, Order. Furthermore, as the documents were dated
November 5, 2025, they could not have been seeking an extension of time for a deadline established in the Court’s
January 5, 2025, Order. As such, Movant has not filed anything in response to the Court’s January 5, 2025, Order.
The Court will therefore dismiss this action, without prejudice, due to Movant’s failure to
comply with the Court’s January 5, 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 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 20" day of January, 2026.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE