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
REV. TOM BROWN PLAINTIFF
V. CASE NO. 5:18-CV-05199
JAIL STAFF JOHN AND JANE DOES; and
SHERIFF TIM HELDER, in his official capacity,
Washington County, 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 and in forma pauperis.
By Opinion and Order (Doc. 17) entered on February 14, 2019, Plaintiff was given
until April 15, 2019, to file an amended complaint naming the staff members he contends
denied him medical care and/or subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of
confinement. In the meantime, the Court added Washington County as a Defendant by
serving Sheriff Helder in his official capacity.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed the amended complaint. 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 an 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 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,
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 on this ae tay of April, 2019. (fe
a“
MOTE. BROOKS
NITEDSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE