Opinion

Ware

Court
District Court, E.D. Missouri
Filed
Mar 6, 2026
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 39.4%

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

SUPASTAR WARE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-01168-SRW

)

LT UNKNOWN WALLACE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented Plaintiff Supastar

Ware, also known as Lamont Ware, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged civil

rights violations. ECF No. 1. On January 21, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed

in forma pauperis and ordered her to file an amended complaint on a Court-provided form. ECF

No. 17. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that her failure to timely comply with the Order would result

in dismissal of her case without further notice. Plaintiff’s response was due by February 20, 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, she was cautioned that her

case would be dismissed if she failed to timely comply, and she 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 January 21, 2026, Order and her failure to prosecute her 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 6th day of March, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.