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
PAUL BARRON, JR. PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 5:19-cv-05161
CORPORAL TEAGUE; NURSE
DENISE WILTON; NURSE JON BECKHAM;
and CORPORAL MULVANEY 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. Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Washington County
Detention Center.
By Order (ECF No. 7) entered on August 22, 2019, Plaintiff was directed to file an
amended complaint. The amended complaint was to be filed by September 11, 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 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 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 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). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of September 2019.
/s/P.K. Holmes,
P. K. HOLMES, III
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
[2]