stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)
How later courts described this case
- stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
KEVIN LEE RITCHIE PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 2:17-CV-02180
SHERIFF RON BROWN and CAPTAIN DEFENDANTS
HALBERT TORRANCE
ORDER
Plaintiff proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court Order (ECF No. 3) and failure to
prosecute this case.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 4, 2017. (ECF No. 1). Due to deficiencies in the
Complaint, the Court entered an Order on October 4, 2017 directing Plaintiff to file an Amended
Complaint by October 20, 2017. (ECF No. 3). On October 12, 2017, mail sent to Plaintiff,
including the Order, was returned as undeliverable, stating Plaintiff was no longer incarcerated at
the Crawford County Detention Center. Plaintiff has not provided a current address or otherwise
communicated with the Court since filing his Complaint.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the
grounds that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with orders of the court. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (stating that the district court
possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). Pursuant to Rule 41(b), a district
court has the power to dismiss an action based on “the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court
order.” Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address as required by Local
Rule 5.5(c)(2). Plaintiff has failed to comply with a Court Order. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute
this matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule
5.5(c)(2), Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with
the Court’s Local Rules and Orders and failure to prosecute this case.
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of December 2017.
/s/P. K. Holmes,
P. K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE