# Bridges v. Brown

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · September 1, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10010791

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** September 1, 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/10010791

## 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

JOSHUA BRIDGES PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:20-CV-02006

SHERIFF RON BROWN, et. al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court Order and failure to prosecute this
case.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on January 23, 2020. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff was directed to
file an Amended IFP application and Complaint, and did so on February 5, 2020. (ECF Nos. 3, 5,
6). On April 30, 2020, Defendant Brown filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 16). On May 1,
2020, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file his Response to the Motion by May 22,
2020. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff was advised that failure to timely and properly comply with this
Order would result in the dismissal of this case. (Id.).
To date, Plaintiff has failed to file his Response, and has not otherwise communicated with
the Court.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
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). The local rules state in pertinent part:
It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly notify the Clerk
and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to
monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. .
. . If any communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to
within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Any party
proceeding pro se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).

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).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to comply with a Court Order. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this
matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2)
Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s
Local Rules and Orders and failure to prosecute this case.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of September 2020.
/s/P. K. Holmes, III

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10010791. Public record. Not legal advice.