Williams v. Unemployment Securities

Filing 4

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action 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. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on February 16, 2021. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ROZINA JONES WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT SECURITIES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:20CV1756 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On December 15, 2020, the Court
ordered plaintiff Rozina Jones Williams to submit an amended complaint on a Court-provided
form. ECF No. 2. She was also directed to either file a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis or pay the filing fee. Plaintiff was given twenty-one (21) days to comply. Her responses
were due on January 5, 2021. Plaintiff was advised that her failure to comply would result in the
dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice.
The Court has not received an amended complaint or motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis from plaintiff. Instead, on January 11, 2021, mail sent to plaintiff was returned as
undeliverable. ECF No. 3. A forwarding address was not provided, so the mail was not resent.
Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s December 15th 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. Therefore, this action will be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the Court’s December 15, 2020 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 has generally been considered an ‘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.”); Dudley v. Miles, 597 F. App’x 392
(8th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal without prejudice where self-represented plaintiff failed to file
an amended complaint despite being cautioned that dismissal could result from failure to do so);
Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the power to dismiss an
action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order).
Furthermore, Local Rule 2.06(B) requires every self-represented party to promptly notify
the Clerk of Court of any change in address. The rule further provides that “[i]f any mail to a selfrepresented plaintiff or petitioner is returned to the Court without a forwarding address and the
self-represented plaintiff or petitioner does not notify the Court of the change of address within
thirty (30) days, the Court may, without further notice, dismiss the action without prejudice.” E.D.
Mo. L.R. 2.06(B). Here, thirty days have elapsed since plaintiff’s mail was returned to the Court.
Plaintiff has not provided her new address or submitted anything further to the Court. As such,
the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action 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 16th day of February, 2021.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2