Opinion

Collinsworth v. John Doe Patrol Officers of the Fayetteville Police Department

Court
District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Filed
Jan 28, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.2%

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

ROBERT LEE COLLINSWORTH PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:19-cv-05238

JOHN DOE PATROL OFFICERS OF THE

FAYETTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT;

JOHN DOE PATROL OFFICERS OF THE

GREENLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT; and

JOHN DOE PATROL OFFICERS OF THE WEST

FORK POLICE DEPARTMENT 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. 3) entered on December 30, 2019, Plaintiff was directed to file an

amended complaint. The amended complaint was to be filed by January 15, 2020. 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

1

requires parties appearing pro se to monitor the case, and to prosecute or defend the action

diligently.

Therefore, pursuant to Rule 41(b), this case 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 28th day of January 2020.

/s/P.K. Holmes,

P. K. HOLMES, III

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.