# Markham v. Dalton

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10010287

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 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/10010287

## 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
TEXARKANA DIVISION
MICHAEL EUGENE MARKHAM PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:19-cv-4114
JAILER POTTER DALTON; JAIL
ADMINISTRATOR JANA TALLENT;
DEPUTY SHERIFF JOHN ERIC; JAILER
TURNER REED; JAILER ETHAN NOWLEN;
and SHERIFF BRIAN MCJUNKINS DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute this
case.
Plaintiff Michael Eugene Markham filed his Complaint and Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) on September 11, 2019. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). That same day, the Court
entered an order noting that Plaintiff’s Application for IFP failed to include page two (2) of the
application. (ECF No. 3). The order directed Plaintiff to either complete the IFP application or
pay the filing fee for this case by October 1, 2019. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff was advised that if he
failed “to file the completed IFP application or pay the $400 by October 1, 2019, the complaint
shall be dismissed, without further notice, for failure to obey an order of the Court.” Id. As of the
date of this order, Plaintiff has failed to file a completed IFP application or pay the filing fee.
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). 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).

Plaintiff has failed to obey a court order and has failed to prosecute this case. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 30th day of October, 2019.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10010287. Public record. Not legal advice.