# Safo

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · August 17, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11420030

## Case

- **Full name:** Jude Safo v. Officer Unknown Goodman, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** August 17, 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/11420030

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JUDE SAFO, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 4:26-cv-00456-ACL
)
OFFICER UNKNOWN GOODMAN, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. On July 8, 2026, the Court
ordered self-represented plaintiff Jude Safo to pay the full filing fee for this case, and to sign and
return his Complaint. [Doc. 4]. The Court cautioned plaintiff that his failure to timely comply
with the Order would result in the dismissal of his case without further notice. [Id. at 1, 3].
Plaintiff’s response was due by August 7, 2026.
To date, plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s Order nor sought additional time to
do so. Local Rule 2.01 authorizes the Clerk of Court to refuse to receive any pleadings “until the
applicable statutory fee is paid, except in cases accompanied by a completed application to
proceed in forma pauperis.” E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.01(B)(1). Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and
there is no signed operative complaint in this matter. Plaintiff was given meaningful notice of
what was expected, cautioned that his case would be dismissed if he failed to timely comply, and
granted ample time to comply. The Court will therefore dismiss this action, without prejudice,
due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s July 8, 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) (stating 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) (stating 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 17th day of August, 2026.

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11420030. Public record. Not legal advice.