# Robinson v. Van Meter

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · September 1, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10011878

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** September 1, 2022
- **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/10011878

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

TRENTONIOUS ROBINSON PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:21-cv-4055

JOHN VAN METER DEFENDANT

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this matter.
On January 27, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff requested to withdraw, stating that they had
completely lost contact with Plaintiff and that no attempts at communication with him had been
successful. ECF No. 21. The Court subsequently granted the motion to withdraw. ECF No. 22.
On June 14, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to compel, stating that Plaintiff had not complied with
various discovery requests. ECF No. 23. The Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel. ECF
No. 26. On July 25, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 28. Defendant states
that Plaintiff has failed to adhere to the Court’s prior order to compel discovery and has not
communicated with counsel for Defendant in any manner. ECF No. 29, p. 1-2. Therefore,
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute his claim. Id.
On August 9, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen (14) days as
to why he had not complied with discovery demands and why he had generally failed to litigate
this matter. ECF No. 30. Plaintiff has failed to show cause and the time to do so has elapsed.
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). Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) states 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 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).
Plaintiff has failed to obey two orders of the Court. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the Court finds that this case should be dismissed.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28) is hereby GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 3) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 1st day of September, 2022.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10011878. Public record. Not legal advice.