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
HUNTER A. BYERS PLAINTIFF
v. Case No. 6:21-cv-6066
SUPERVISOR JOE JONES, Trinity
Services Group; SHERIFF MIKE
MCCORMICK, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
This is a civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s
failure to obey an Order of the Court.
DISCUSSION
On April 28, 2021, Gary M. Chambers filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 on behalf of himself and sixteen other plaintiffs. Hunter Byers (“Byers”) was one of the
sixteen plaintiffs. His claims were severed and this case was opened on his behalf. Plaintiff
Byers proceeds pro se. Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Garland County Detention Center.
By Order (ECF No. 2) entered on April 28, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The amended
complaint and IFP application were to be filed by May 27, 2021. Plaintiff was advised that if he
failed to comply with the Order the case “shall be subject to dismissal.”
To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or an 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. See
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. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case pursuant to
Rule 41(b), and has failed to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s case should be and hereby is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 9th day of August, 2021.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge