stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule (2) 41(b)
How later courts described this case
- stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule (2) 41(b)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
EULAS LINWOOD HUGHES PLAINTIFF
Ve CASE NO. 5:18-cv-05223
FRAN INFANTE, Nurse, Turnkey
Medical; SHAWNA STEPHENS,
Nurse Turnkey Medical, et al. DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se. With his complaint, Plaintiff submitted an in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) application. However, he failed to complete the certification regarding inmate
funds held in his name. An Order (Doc. 4) was entered on November 13, 2018, giving
Plaintiff until December 4, 2018, to either have the certificate portion of the IFP application
completed by the appropriate detention center official and return the application to this
Court for review and filing or pay the $400 filing fee. Plaintiff was advised that if he failed
to comply with the Order, the complaint would become subject to summary dismissal for
failure to obey an order of the Court.
Plaintiff has not complied with the Order (Doc. 4). He has not sought an extension
of time to comply. Plaintiff has not contacted the Court in any way. No mail has been
returned as undeliverable.
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. 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
(2)
41(b)). Pursuant to Rule 41(b), a district court has the power to dismiss an action based
on “the plaintiffs 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.
Therefore, pursuant to Rule 41(b), this Complaint should be and hereby is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this case
and his failure to obey the order of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED on this [pBiay of December, 2018.
Ng.
YIVED STAVES DISTRICT JUDGE
[2]