# Hardin

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · January 30, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11249002

## Case

- **Full name:** Darrell Hardin v. Unknown Lang, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** January 30, 2026
- **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/11249002

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

DARRELL HARDIN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:25-cv-00138-SNLJ
)
UNKNOWN LANG, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff Darrell Hardin
commenced this civil action on August 28, 2025, alleging violations of his civil rights by against
eight corrections officers at Southeast Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1). On December 5, 2025,
the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs, and directed him to pay an initial filing fee of $23.72. (ECF No. 6). The Court further
found Plaintiff’s complaint was defective and directed him to file an amended complaint. (Id.).
The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the Order would result in the
dismissal of the case without further notice. (Id.) Plaintiff’s response was due by January 5,
2026.
To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s Order, nor sought additional time
to do so. 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 Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the Court’s December 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.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 30" day of January, 2026.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11249002. Public record. Not legal advice.