Opinion

Holiday v. Beckham

Court
District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Filed
Oct 21, 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

KIAUNCE HOLIDAY PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 5:20-CV-05040

JON BECKHAN, Karas Medical,

Washington County Detention Center 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 was incarcerated in the

Washington County Detention Center when he filed this case. Plaintiff is no longer

incarcerated.

On August 26, 2020, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

17). That same day, an Order (Doc. 20) was entered directing Plaintiff to file a response

to the Motion for Summary Judgment by September 16, 2020. Plaintiff was advised that

failure to respond to the Order would subject the case to dismissal. Plaintiff did not file

a summary judgment response.

On September 21, 2020, a Show Cause Order (Doc. 21) was entered. Plaintiff

was given until October 13, 2020, to show cause why the case should not be dismissed

based on his failure to submit a summary judgment response. Plaintiff was advised that

failure to respond to the Show Cause Order would subject the case to dismissal. Plaintiff

did not respond to the Show Cause Order.

To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment or

to the Show Cause Order. He has not requested an extension of time to file his

responses. No mail has been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has failed to comply

with the Court’s Orders (Docs. 20 & 21).

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), Plaintiffs 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). ot

IT IS SO ORDERED on this ae day of onsen fh

go

7 Pras OKS

; UNITRD 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.