# Byers v. Jones > District Court, W.D. Arkansas · August 9, 2021 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10011292 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas - **Decided:** August 9, 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/10011292 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b) ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10011292. Public record. Not legal advice.