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
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
RICHARD ALBERT GRISHAN PLAINTIFF
V. CASE NO: 6:20-CV-06156
JOE JONES, et. al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court Order
and failure to prosecute this case.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 15, 2020, Lloyd C. Jensen, Jr., then an inmate of the Garland
County Detention Center (“GCDC”), filed a Complaint on behalf of himself and 19 other
GCDC inmates. (Case No. 6:20-cv-06147, Doc. 1). Plaintiff Richard Albert Grishan is
one of those inmates. Id.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires each prisoner who brings a civil action
to submit a separate complaint and a separate application to proceed IFP. See, e.g.,
Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the case was
provisionally filed, and separate cases were opened for each named inmate. (Doc. 2).
On February 9, 2021, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file a Second
Amended Complaint on the court-approved form by March 2, 2021. (Doc. 15). In that
Order, Plaintiff was advised that failure to submit his Second Amended Complaint by the
deadline would result in the dismissal of his case. Id. To date, Plaintiff has failed to
submit his Second Amended Complaint and has failed to otherwise communicate with
the Court.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a pro se litigant is not
excused from complying with substantive and procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d
526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984). The local rules state in pertinent part:
It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly notify the
Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her
address, to monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend
the action diligently. . . . If any communication from the Court to a pro se
plaintiff is not responded to within thirty (30) days, the case may be
dismissed without prejudice. Any party proceeding pro se shall be expected
to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
Additionally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate
dismissal of a case on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply
with orders of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link 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).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has failed to obey a Court Order. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this
matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule
5.5(c)(2), Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply
with the Court’s Local Rules and Orders and failure to prosecute this case.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of March 2021.
/s/ Timothy L. Brooks______________
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE