# Paech v. Watkins

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · January 17, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10010413

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** January 17, 2020
- **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/10010413

## 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
TOMMY EDWARD PAECH PLAINTIFF
V. CASE NO. 5:19-CV-3022
NURSE JANA WATKINS
and LIEUTENANT MATHEW ZELLER 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 Grimes
Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction.
On October 29, 2019, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
16). The following day, an Order (Doc. 19) was entered directing Plaintiff to file a
response to the Motion for Summary Judgment by November 20, 2019. Plaintiff was
advised that failure to respond to the Order would subject the case to dismissal, without
prejudice.
When Plaintiff did not file a timely response, a Show Cause Order (Doc. 20) was
entered on November 26, 2019. The Order gave Plaintiff until December 20, 2019, to
show cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to comply with a
court order and his failure to prosecute the case.

To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
He has not requested an extension of time to file his response. Plaintiff has not responded
to the Show Cause 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.
Therefore, pursuant to Rule 41(b), Plaintiffs Complaint should be and hereby is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiffs 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). Wy,
IT IS SO ORDERED on this yt day of ven , 2020.

Wes
Z\\ME ‘L. BROOKS
: UNITED STAFES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10010413. Public record. Not legal advice.