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
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
SANDY PHILLIPS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:25-cv-00151-SNLJ
)
STODDARD COUNTY CIRCUIT )
COURT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented Plaintiff
Sandy Phillips brought this civil action for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, Missouri law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1938. [Docs. 1, 4]. On
February 20, 2026, after granting Plaintiff in forma pauperis status, the Court reviewed
her pleadings under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and directed her to file a second amended
complaint within thirty (30) days. [Doc. 11]. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that her
failure to timely comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of the case without
further notice. [Id. at 2, 11]. Plaintiff’s response was due by March 23, 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 February 20, 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 2nd day of April, 2026.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.“
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE