# Hampton v. Stine

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · February 7, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009739

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** February 7, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009739

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

LARRY D. HAMPTON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:19-cv-05012

OFFICER STINE, Farmington Police
Department (FPD); CHIEF HUBBARD, Chief
of Police, FPD; and MAYOR PENN, City Mayor,
Farmington, Arkansas 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. Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center.
By Order (ECF No. 3) entered on January 16, 2019, Plaintiff was directed to submit a
completed certificate of account portion of the in forma pauperis (IFP) application. The certificate
of account was to be filed by February 1, 2019. Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with
the Order “shall result” in the dismissal of the case.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed a completed IFP application. Plaintiff has not sought an
extension of time to comply with the Order. 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 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
[1]
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, 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 7th day of February 2019.

/s/P.K. Holmes,

P. K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

[2]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009739. Public record. Not legal advice.