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
TEXARKANA DIVISION
ERIC ROMAR STANLEY PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:20-cv-04014
OFFICER ROBINSON, Correctional Officer, Miller
County Detention Center; and STUTTERD, Correctional
Officer, Miller County Detention Center DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court order and failure to prosecute
this case. Plaintiff, Eric Romar Stanley, filed his Complaint pro se on January 17, 2020, in the Eastern
District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 2). The case was transferred to this Court on January 28, 2020. (ECF
No. 4).
On January 29, 2020, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file an Amended
Complaint and to return a completed in forma pauperis (IFP) application by February 19, 2020. (ECF
No. 6). The Order states: “If Plaintiff fails to return the completed IFP application or pay the $400 by
February 19, 2020, the complaint shall be subject to summary dismissal for failure to obey an order of
the Court.” Id. The Order further states: “This case shall be subject to dismissal if Plaintiff fails to
return the Amended Complaint by the Court’s imposed deadline of February 19, 2020.” Id. Plaintiff
filed a completed IFP application on February 18, 2020; however, Plaintiff failed to file an Amended
Complaint.
On February 25, 2020, this Court entered an Order giving Plaintiff until March 10, 2020,
to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey an order of the Court.
(ECF No. 11). To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order. None of the Court’s
mailings to Plaintiff have been returned as undeliverable.
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 an order of the Court and has failed to prosecute this matter.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 2) should be and hereby is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS, 19th day of March, 2020.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge