# Fortson v. Waldrum

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · June 16, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10012266

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** June 16, 2023
- **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/10012266

## 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

CHRISTOPHER FORTSON, SR. PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 6:23-cv-06022

JAIL ADMINISTRATOR JOSH WALDRUM,
Clark County Detention Center, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. (ECF No. 8). The
address Plaintiff supplied indicated that he was no longer incarcerated. For this reason, an Order
was entered directing Plaintiff to complete and file a new IFP application to determine if Plaintiff
should be required to pay all, or a portion of, the fees and costs of the lawsuit. (ECF No. 9).
Plaintiff’s completed IFP was due by April 18, 2023. Plaintiff was advised that failure to pay the
filing fee or resubmit an IFP application by the deadline shall subject the case to dismissal.
Plaintiff did not file an IFP motion or pay the filing fee. Out of an abundance of caution,
Plaintiff was provided with a second opportunity to comply when the Court issued its Show Cause
Order. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff’s response to the Show Cause Order was due by May 24, 2023.
To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, filed an IFP motion, or responded to the Show
Cause Order. He has not requested an extension of time to file his responses, and 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, 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.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Orders. (ECF Nos. 9, 13). Accordingly,
the Court finds that this case should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of June, 2023.

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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10012266. Public record. Not legal advice.