Stewart v. Greenwell et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..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 ingood faith.. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 9/19/22. (MRS)

Case: 1:22-cv-00066-SPM Doc. #: 8 Filed: 09/19/22 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
JAMES STEWART,
Plaintiff,
V.

TOMMY GREENWELL, et al. ,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:22-CV-66 SPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. On March 11 , 2022, Plaintiff James
Stewart and another inmate at the Pemiscot County Jail, Craig Hill, filed a joint complaint with
this Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Hill v. Greenwell, No. 1:22-CV-26-HEA (E.D. Mo.).
Because the Court does not allow multiple prisoners to join together in a single lawsuit under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, Stewart was severed from the case and the instant case was
opened on his behalf. See ECF No. 4. On August 2, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs motion to
proceed in forma pauperis as defective and ordered him to file either a new, completed motion or
to pay the full filing fee. See ECF No. 7. In that same Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to file
an amended complaint, asserting only claims brought on his own behalf. Id. The Court cautioned
Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of this case
without further notice. Plaintiffs response was due by September 1, 2022.
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. 2.0l(B)(l). Plaintiff had neither paid the filing fee nor

Case: 1:22-cv-00066-SPM Doc. #: 8 Filed: 09/19/22 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 47

submitted a non-defective motion to proceed without prepayment. 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 Plaintiffs failure to comply with the Court's August 2, 2022
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
plaintiffs 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 !..:!ii_ day of September, 2022.

STEPHEN.LIMBUGH,R.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2