Peet v. Stewart

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

GREGORY ALLEN PEET, SR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Case No. 1:25-cv-00053-SNLJ ) ROGER ALLAN STEWART, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction. On September 16, 2025, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause within 14 days as to why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. [Doc. 65]. The Court provided plaintiff with clear notice of what was required and warned that his case would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if he did not comply in a timely manner. [Id.]. Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause was due by September 30, 2025. [Id.]. As of the date of this Memorandum and Order, plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order, nor has he requested additional time to do so. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the Court’s September 16, 2025 Memorandum and Order to Show [Doc. 65] and herein, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a Court Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); Bueford v. Resolution Trust Corp., 991 F.2d 481, 485 (8th Cir. 1993) (“Lack of subject matter jurisdiction ... may be raised at any time by a party to an action, or by the court sua sponte.”); see also Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (“A district court has the power under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) to dismiss an action for the plaintiffs failure to comply with any court order” and may do so “on its own initiative.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be entered. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. SO ORDERED this 7th day of October, 2025.

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