# Krecker v. Brown

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · April 13, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10010574

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** April 13, 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/10010574

## 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
FORT SMITH DIVISION

JAMES KRECKER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:20-cv-02010

SHERIFF RON BROWN,
Crawford County, Arkansas;
CAPTAIN PATTY STROUD;
and LIEUTENANT C. DOWDY DEFENDANTS

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 6, 2020. He proceeds
pro se and in forma pauperis.
On March 3, 2020, an Order (ECF No. 9) was entered directing Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiff was advised his original complaint was deficit because he: (1) failed to state
what actions each individual Defendant took that resulted in a violation his federal constitutional
rights; and, (2) failed to indicate if he suffered any physical injury or other damages as a result of
Defendants’ actions. Plaintiff was given detailed instructions regarding the filing of an amended
complaint.
Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on March 11, 2020. (ECF No. 11). Contrary
to the Court’s direction, Plaintiff did not describe any actions taken by the Defendants that
allegedly resulted in a violation of his federal constitutional rights. Section 1983 requires a
showing of each Defendant’s personal involvement or responsibility for the constitutional
violations.
An Order (ECF No. 12) was entered on March 11, 2020, giving Plaintiff another chance to
1
amend his complaint. Plaintiff was directed to submit a Second Amended Complaint by March
30, 2020. Once again, Plaintiff was given detailed instructions regarding the filing of an amended
complaint.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed a Second Amended Complaint. He has not filed a motion for
an extension of time. He has not contacted the Court in anyway.

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.
Therefore, pursuant to Rule 41(b), this action should be and hereby is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case and his failure to
obey the orders of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of April 2020.

/s/P.K. Holmes,

P. K. HOLMES, III
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10010574. Public record. Not legal advice.