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
FORT SMITH DIVISION
BRENTON PRESLEY PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 2:21-cv-02013
CAPTAIN WILLIAM DUMAS,
Sebastian County Detention Center;
and SERGEANT EDDIE SMITH,
Sebastian County Detention Center 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 has filed a motion (ECF No. 2) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Sebastian County Detention Center.
By Order (ECF No. 3) entered on January 12, 2021, Plaintiff was notified that his IFP
application was incomplete. Specifically, he failed to include the certificate regarding his inmate
funds. The complete IFP application was to be filed by February 2, 2021. Plaintiff was advised
that failure to comply with the Order could result in the summary dismissal of the case for failure
to obey a Court order.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed the complete IFP application. Plaintiff has not sought an
extension of time to comply with the Order. 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
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,
[1]
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 2nd day of March 2021.
/s/P.K. Holmes,
P. K. HOLMES, III
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
[2]