Seventh Circuit· 10/26/1995

In re Bluestein & Co.

Citations

68 F.3d 1022

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

recognizing that “where a plaintiff brings an action pro se, and so is particularly in need of the court’s patience and instruction, this court has consistently held that a district court must give explicit warning prior to dismissing the case for want of prosecution”
prior warnings not required in extreme cases when counsel should have expected his actions to result in dismissal
prior warnings not required in extreme cases when counsel should have expected his actions to result in dismissal
while dismissal without a warning is extreme, it is appropriate “where it is clear that [a party] must have expected his . . . inaction . . . to be answered with dismissal” (emphasis omitted)
“District courts possess the inherent authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for want of prosecution as part of the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”
“District courts possess the inherent authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for want of prosecution as part of the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Fairchild, Flaum, Kanne

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.