Opinion

Hill v. Hollenbeck

Court
District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Filed
Mar 16, 2018
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.1%

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

BRIAN HILL PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:16-CV-02205

SHERIFF BILL HOLLENBECK, et.al. DEFENDANTS

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.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff notified the Court by phone of an address change. As the

new address indicated Plaintiff was no longer incarcerated, the Court entered an Order on February

13, 2018, directing Plaintiff to complete an IFP application reflecting his free-world financial

status. (ECF No. 90). This Order was not returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff did not comply with

the Order.

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 comply with a Court order. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case.

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 16th day of March 2018.

/s/P. K. Holmes,

P. K. HOLMES, III

CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.