# Sandoval v. Billingsly

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · February 22, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10011017

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** February 22, 2021
- **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/10011017

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the district court [1] 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
NEFTAL RODRIGUEZ SANDOVAL PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 5:20-cv-05215
OFFICER JOHN BILLINGSLY;
DETECTIVE JOHN MACKEY; and
AGENT KEVIN WATSON DEFENDANTS
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 incarcerated in the Washington County
Detention Center.
By Order (ECF No. 3) entered on December 16, 2020, Plaintiff was directed to file an
Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint was to be filed by January 6, 2021. Plaintiff was
advised that failure to comply with the Order “shall” result in the dismissal of the case. Plaintiff
did not file his Amended Complaint.
On January 13, 2021, a Show Cause Order (ECF No. 9) was entered giving Plaintiff until
February 3, 2021, to show cause why the case should not be dismissed based on his failure to obey
the Order (ECF No. 3) of the Court. Plaintiff did not respond to the Show Cause Order.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has not sought an
extension of time to comply with the Orders of the Court. No mail has been returned as
undeliverable.
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
[1]
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 order of the Court, and his failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of February 2021.

/s/P.K. Holmes,

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

[2]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10011017. Public record. Not legal advice.