# Barron v. Helder

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · October 19, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10010854

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 19, 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/10010854

## 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
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

KEVIN EUGENE BARRON PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 5:20-CV-5037

SHERIFF TIM HELDER, Washington
County, Arkansas 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. When he filed this case, Plaintiff was
incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center. Plaintiff is no longer
incarcerated.
On August 13, 2020, the Defendant filed a Motion to Compel (Doc. 16). Plaintiff
did not respond to the Motion to Compel. The Motion was granted by Order (Doc. 18)
entered on August 28, 2020. Plaintiff was ordered to provide the Defendant with
responses to discovery by September 15, 2020. Defendant was advised to file a motion
to dismiss if Plaintiff did not comply with the Order.
On September 17, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19). In the
Motion, Defendant states that Plaintiff has failed to provide the discovery responses. An
Order (Doc. 21) was entered on September 17, 2020, directing Plaintiff to respond to the
Motion to Dismiss by October 8, 2020. Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with
the Order would result in the dismissal of the case.
Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion to Dismiss. He has not sought an
extension of time to provide the discovery responses or to respond to the Motion to
1
Dismiss. Plaintiff has not complied with the Order (Doc. 18) directing him to provide
Defendants with discovery responses or with the Order (Doc. 21) directing him to respond
to the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court in any way.
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.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) is GRANTED. 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 and his failure to obey the orders of the
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 19th day of October, 2020.

/s/ Timothy L. Brooks____________
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10010854. Public record. Not legal advice.