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
HARRISON DIVISION
NICHOLAS DEWAYNE NIXON PLAINTIFF
V. CASE NO. 3:19-CV-03032
BOONE COUNTY JAIL 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. 6) entered on May 7, 2019, Plaintiff was directed to: (1) submit a
completed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application and (2) file an amended complaint. The
documents were to be filed by May 28, 2019. Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply
with the Order would result in the dismissal of the case.
To date, Plaintiff has filed neither an IFP application nor an 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 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
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.
1
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).
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 6th day of June, 2019.
/s/ Timothy L. Brooks
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2