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
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
ADAM BROOKS FLORES PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 5:18-cv-05086
TURN KEY HEALTH CLINICS, LLC;
TRINITY SERVICES GROUP, INC; DEFENDANTS
SHERIFF HOLLOWAY; CAPTAIN
GUYLL; LIEUTENANT HOLT; and
JOHN AND JANE DOES, Employees
Of the Benton County Detention Center
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Benton County Detention
Center.
On August 6, 2018, Separate Defendants Sheriff Holloway and Captain Guyll filed a
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13). The Motion to Dismiss is premised on the fact that neither of
these two Defendants are mentioned in the body of the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6).
On August 9, 2018, an Order (ECF No. 18) was entered directing Plaintiff to file a response
to the Motion to Dismiss by August 30, 2018. Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond to the
Order would subject the case to dismissal, without prejudice.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss. He has not requested
an extension of time to file his response. No mail has been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff
has failed to comply with the Court’s Order (ECF No. 18) requiring him to file his Response by
August 30, 2018.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the
ground that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with order of the court. Fed. R.
[1]
Civ. P. 41(b); Line 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). Additionally, Rule
5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas requires parties
appearing pro se to monitor the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently.
While the Court clearly has the authority to dismiss the entire case, the Court will limit the
dismissal to Separate Defendants Sheriff Holloway and Captain Guyll. Therefore, pursuant to
Rule 41(b), the Complaint should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to
SEPARATE DEFENDANTS SHERIFF HOLLOWAY AND CAPTAIN GUYLL based on
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case, his failure to obey the order of the Court, and his failure
to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of September 2018.
/s/P.K. Holmes,
P. K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
[2]