Opinion

Egziabher v. Faubus

Court
District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Filed
Oct 16, 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

ASSEFA GABREL EGZIABHER, JR. PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 5:20-CV-05005

OFFICER FAUBUS, Fayetteville

Police Department DEFENDANT

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 not incarcerated.

On August 21, 2020, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

21). That same day, an Order (Doc. 24) was entered directing Plaintiff to file a response

to the Motion for Summary Judgment by September 11, 2020. Plaintiff was advised that

failure to respond to the Order would subject the case to dismissal without prejudice.

Plaintiff did not file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. On

September 18, 2020, a Show Cause Order (Doc. 25) was entered. Plaintiff was given

until October 9, 2020, to show cause why he failed to obey the Order of the Court.

Plaintiff has not responded to the Show Cause Order. He has not requested an

extension of time to file his response. No mail has been returned as undeliverable.

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Orders (Docs. 24—25).

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 Complaint should be and hereby is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this case,

his failure to obey the orders of the Court, and his failure to comply with Local Rule

5.5(c)(2). We

IT IS SO ORDERED on this lb day of October, 2020.

iS,

er ee

4 NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.