# Martin v. Poyner

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · April 30, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009940

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** April 30, 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/10009940

## 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
HARRISON DIVISION

SHELBY BRYAN MARTIN PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 3:19-CV-03025
JARED POYNER, Guard,
Boone County Detention Center DEFENDANT

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 Boone County Detention Center.
By Order (Doc. 4) entered on April 4, 2019, Plaintiff was directed to submit a
completed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. The IFP application was due by April 22,
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 the 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 the 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 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules
[1]

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). Ww
IT 1S SO ORDERED on this BU tayo April, 2019. 7
( / |

IMO [HY L-BROOKS
UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

[2]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009940. Public record. Not legal advice.