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
FORT SMITH DIVISION
MATTHEW GUESS PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 2:19-CV-02090
MCBROOM, WILLIAM HOLLENBECK, DEFENDANTS
and DOE JAIL ADMINISTRATOR
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to provide an Amended Complaint and to prosecute
this case.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Eastern District of Arkansas on July 12, 2019. (ECF
No. 2). It was transferred to this District on July 15, 2019. (ECF No. 4, 5). On July 16, 2019, the
Court entered Orders directing Plaintiff to provide a completed IFP application and an Amended
Complaint by August 6, 2019. In both Orders, Plaintiff was advised that his case would be subject
to dismissal if he failed to submit the documents by the deadline. (ECF No. 7, 8). Plaintiff
provided an IFP application on July 29, 2019, and was granted IFP status. (ECF No. 9, 10).
Plaintiff has not, however, submitted an Amended Complaint, and has not otherwise
communicated with the Court concerning his Amended Complaint.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a pro se litigant is not excused
from complying with substantive and procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir.
1984). The local rules state in pertinent part:
It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly notify the Clerk
and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to
monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. .
. . If any communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to
within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Any party
proceeding pro se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
Additionally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a
case on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with orders of the
court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link 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).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to comply with a Court Order. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this
matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2)
Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s
Local Rules and Orders and failure to prosecute this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of August 2019.
/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P. K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE