# Wright

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · April 13, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11324170

## Case

- **Full name:** Pete Wright v. Cheri O’Neal, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** April 13, 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/11324170

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

PETE WRIGHT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:25-cv-1794-CMS
)
CHERI O’NEAL, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff Pete Wright commenced
this civil action on December 4, 2025. ECF No. 1. On December 11, 2025, the Court ordered
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on a Court form. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff filed his amended
complaint on December 22, 2025. ECF No. 4. On December 29, 2025, the Court gave Notice to
Plaintiff that he was required, under Local Rule 2.09, to file a Disclosure Statement. ECF No. 5.
On January 26, 2026, the Court gave a Second Notice to Plaintiff that he was required to file a
Disclosure Statement. ECF No. 6. On February 11, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show
cause why his complaint should not be dismissed for failure to file a Disclosure Statement. ECF
No. 7. Plaintiff was also ordered to attach his Disclosure Statement to his response. 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.
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 February 11, 2026, 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 FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) will be DENIED as moot.
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 13th day of April, 2026.

CRISTIAN M. STEVENS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11324170. Public record. Not legal advice.