Link v. Wabash Railroad Company

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation8 L.Ed.2d 734,82 S.Ct. 1386,370 U.S. 626
Docket NumberNo. 422,422
PartiesWilliam LINK, Petitioner, v. WABASH RAILROAD COMPANY
Decision Date25 June 1962

Jay E. Darlington, Hammond, Ind., for petitioner.

John F. Bodle, Lafayette, Ind., for respondent.

Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner challenges, from the standpoint of both power and discretion, the District Court's sua sponte dismissal of this diversity negligence action under circumstances that follow.

The action, growing out of a collision between petitioner's automobile and one of respondent's trains, was commenced on August 24, 1954. Some six years later, and more than three years after petitioner had finally prevailed on respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings (during which time two fixed trial dates had been postponed),1 the District Court, on September 29, 1960, duly notified counsel for each side of the scheduling of a pretrial conference to be held at the courthouse in Hammond, Indiana, on October 12, 1960, at 1 p.m. During the preceding morning, October 11, petitioner's counsel telephoned respondent's lawyer from Indianapolis, stating that 'he was doing some work on some papers,' that he expected to be at the pretrial conference, but that he might not attend the taking of a deposition of the plaintiff scheduled for the same day. At about 10:45 on the morning of October 12 petitioner's counsel telephoned the Hammond courthouse from Indianapolis (about 160 miles away), and after asking for the judge, who then was on the bench, requested the judge's secretary to convey to him this message: 'that he (counsel) was busy preparing papers to file with the (Indiana) Supreme Court,' that 'he wasn't actually engaged in argument and that he couldn't be here by 1:00 o'clock, but he would be here either Thursday afternoon (October 13) or any time Friday (October 14) if it (the pretrial conference) could be reset.'

When petitioner's counsel did not appear at the pretrial conference the District Court, after reviewing the history of the case2 and finding that counsel had failed 'to indicate * * * a reasonable reason' for his nonappearance, dismissed the action 'for failure of the plaintiff's counsel to appear at the pretrial, for failure to prosecute this action.' The court, acting two hours after the appointed hour for the conference, stated that the dismissal was in the 'exercise (of) its inherent power.' The Court of Appeals affirmed by a divided vote. 7 Cir., 291 F.2d 542. We granted certiorari. 368 U.S. 918, 82 S.Ct. 242, 7 L.Ed.2d 134.


The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff's action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted. 3 The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts. The power is of ancient origin, having its roots in judgments of nonsuit and non prosequitur entered at common law, e.g., 3 Blackstone, Commentaries (1768), 295—296, and dismissals for want of prosecution of bills in equity, e.g., id., at 451. It has been expressly recognized in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which provides, in pertinent part:

'(b) Involuntary Dismissal: Effect Thereof. For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against him. * * * Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or for improper venue, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.'

Petitioner contends that the language of this Rule, by negative implication, prohibits involuntary dismissals for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute except upon motion by the defendant. In the present case there was no such motion.

We do not read Rule 41(b) as implying any such restriction. Neither the permissive language of the Rule—which merely authorizes a motion by the defendant—nor its policy requires us to conclude that it was the purpose of the Rule to abrogate the power of courts, acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief. The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an 'inherent power,' governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.4 That it has long gone unquestioned is apparent not only from the many state court decisions sustaining such dismissals,5 but even from language in this Court's opinion in Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Co., 110 U.S. 174, 176, 3 S.Ct. 570, 28 L.Ed. 109.6 It also has the sanction of wide usage among the District Courts. 7 It would require a much clearer expression of purpose than Rule 41(b) provides for us to assume that it was intended to abrogate so well-acknowledged a proposition.

Nor does the absence of notice as to the possibility of dismissal or the failure to hold an adversary hearing necessarily render such a dismissal void. It is true, of course, that 'the fundamental requirement of due process is an opportunity to be heard upon such notice and proceedings as are adequate to safeguard the right for which the constitutional protection is invoked.' Anderson National Bank v. Luckett, 321 U.S. 233, 246, 64 S.Ct. 599, 606, 88 L.Ed. 692. But this does not mean that every order entered without notice and a preliminary adversary hearing offends due process. The adequacy of notice and hearing respecting proceedings that may affect a party's rights turns, to a considerable extent, on the knowledge which the circumstances show such party may be taken to have of the consequences of his own conduct. The circumstances here were such as to dispense with the necessity for advance notice and hearing.

In addition, the availability of a corrective remedy such as is provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)—which authorizes the reopening of cases in which final orders have been inadvisedly entered—renders tha lack of prior notice of less consequence. Petitioner never sought to avail himself of the escape hatch provided by Rule 60(b).

Accordingly, when circumstances make such action appropriate, a District Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without affording notice of its intention to do so or providing an adversary hearing before acting. Whether such an order can stand on appeal depends not on power but on whether it was within the permissible range of the court's discretion.8


On this record we are unable to say that the District Court's dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute, as evidenced only partly by the failure of petitioner's counsel to appear at a duly scheduled pretrial conference, amounted to an abuse of discretion. It was certainly within the bounds of permissible discretion for the court to conclude that the telephone excuse offered by petitioner's counsel was inadequate to explain his failure to attend. And it could reasonably be inferred from his absence, as well as from the drawn-out history of the litigation (see note 2, supra),9 that petitioner had been deliberately proceeding in dilatory fashion.

There is certainly no merit to the contention that dismissal of petitioner's claim because of his counsel's unexcused conduct imposes an unjust penalty on the client. Petitioner voluntarily chose this attorney as his representative in the action, and he cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of this freely selected agent. Any other notion would be wholly inconsistent with our system of representative litigation, in which each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have 'notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.' Smith v. Ayer, 101 U.S. 320, 326, 25 L.Ed. 955.10

We need not decide whether unexplained absence from a pretrial conference would alone justify a dismissal with prejudice if the record showed no other evidence of dilatoriness on the part of the plaintiff. For the District Court in this case relied on all the circumstances that were brought to its attention, including the earlier delays.11 And while the Court of Appeals did not expressly rest its judgment on petitioner's failure to prosecute, it nonetheless set out the entire history of the case (including the statement made by the district judge's secretary that it was 'the oldest civil case on the court docket'), noted that the District Court had considered the absence at the pretrial conference in light of 'the history of this litigation' and 'of all the circumstances surrounding counsel's action in the case,' 291 F.2d at 545, and held that there was no abuse of discretion in dismissing the action 'under the circumstances of this case.' Id., at 546. This obviously amounts to no broader a holding than that the failure to appear at a pretrial conference may, in the context of other evidence of delay, be considered by a District Court as justifying a dismissal with prejudice.12

Nor need we consider whether the District Court would have been abusing its discretion had it rejected a motion under Rule 60(b) which was accompanied by a more adequate explanation for the absence of petitioner's counsel from the pretrial conference. No such motion was ever made, so that there is nothing in the record before us to indicate that counsel's failure to attend the pretrial conference was other than deliberate or the product of neglect.

Finally, this is not a case in which failure to comply with a court order 'was due to inability fostered neither by * * * (petitioner's) own conduct nor by circumstances...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18604 cases
  • United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 28, 1975
    ...(1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 182, 278 P.2d 511), notice secures the opportunity to be heard, ensures due process (Link v. Wabash R. Co. (1962) 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734; Crescendo Corp. v. Shelted, Inc. (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 209, 72 Cal.Rptr. 776), and yet neither delays the proce......
  • In re Ministries
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Ninth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Central District of California
    • March 31, 2020
    ...context, such as non-jurisdictional dismissals, a client is normally chargeable with her counsel's conduct. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-634 (1962) (dismissal by the district court for counsel's unexcused failure to prosecute was not an "unjust penalty on the client").26 I......
  • Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Distajo
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • September 28, 1995 the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process."); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) ("The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff's action with prejudice because of his failur......
  • Hamm v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • October 7, 2020
    ...vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). In addition to its inherent authority, a court may sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution under Federal Rule of C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Debtors' Delusions Of Bankruptcy
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 24, 2014
    ...of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have 'notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.'" Link v. Wabash R., 370 U.S. 626, 634, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1390, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734, 740 (1962); Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 396, 113 S. Ct......
  • Rule Review - Japanese Foundation v. Lee: Miscommunication Between Attorney And Clients Insufficient To Withdraw Terminal Disclaimer
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 23, 2015
    ...circumstances, the client's remedy is against the attorney in a suit for malpractice.'" Id. at 1309 n.6 (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 634, n.10 Japanese Foundation can be used as a case that highlights the importance of clear communication between clients and U.S. practiti......
23 books & journal articles
  • Money matters: judicial market interventions creating subsidies and awarding fees and costs in individual and aggregate litigation.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 148 No. 6, June 2000
    • June 1, 2000 an "extra fee" money in excess of what the client who had retained the lawyer would have paid). (58) See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 634 (1962) (discussing how, in "our system of representative litigation ... each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent"). On the cri......
  • Courting Equity in Bankruptcy.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 94 No. 2, March 2020
    • March 22, 2020
    ...(alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 34 (1812)). (51) Id. (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (52) As Chief Justice Marshall stated in Ex parte Burr, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 529 (1824): [T]he profession of an attorney is of great im......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • May 4, 2015
    ...Mar. 31, 2009) , 6th-09 Lingenfelter v. Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. Oct. 4, 2007), 9th-10, 9th-07, § 1102.5 Link v. Wabash R.R. Co. , 370 U.S. 626, 633-34, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962), 2d-10 Linquist v. Bowen, 813 F.2d 884, 887 n.12 (8th Cir. 1987), § 603.8 Lipson v. Barnhart ,......
  • The pleading problem.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 62 No. 5, May 2010
    • May 1, 2010
    ...v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) 5838 88 Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) 5798 89 Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) 5748 90 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) 5734 91 Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) 5612 92 First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Serv......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT