Darrell Hardin v. Unknown Lang, et al.

E.D. Missouri

Darrell Hardin v. Unknown Lang, et al.

DecidedJanuary 30, 2026

Docket1:25-cv-00138

StatusUnknown

This text of Darrell Hardin v. Unknown Lang, et al. (Darrell Hardin v. Unknown Lang, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Darrell Hardin v. Unknown Lang, et al., (E.D. Mo. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

DARRELL HARDIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:25-cv-00138-SNLJ ) UNKNOWN LANG, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff Darrell Hardin commenced this civil action on August 28, 2025, alleging violations of his civil rights by against eight corrections officers at Southeast Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1). On December 5, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, and directed him to pay an initial filing fee of $23.72. (ECF No. 6). The Court further found Plaintiff’s complaint was defective and directed him to file an amended complaint. (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.) Plaintiff’s response was due by January 5, 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, 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 December 5, 2025 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 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 30" day of January, 2026.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

DARRELL HARDIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:25-cv-00138-SNLJ ) UNKNOWN LANG, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff Darrell Hardin commenced this civil action on August 28, 2025, alleging violations of his civil rights by against eight corrections officers at Southeast Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1). On December 5, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, and directed him to pay an initial filing fee of $23.72. (ECF No. 6). The Court further found Plaintiff’s complaint was defective and directed him to file an amended complaint. (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.) Plaintiff’s response was due by January 5, 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, 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 December 5, 2025 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 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 30" day of January, 2026.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Darrell Hardin v. Unknown Lang, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darrell-hardin-v-unknown-lang-et-al-moed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack