# Stearns v. Cantrell

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · September 8, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10632818

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** September 8, 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/10632818

## 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
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JUSTIN STEARNS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:2 3-cv-05061

SHERIFF JAY CANTRELL, Washington DEFENDANTS
County, Arkansas; ZACHARY CAUSEY,
Karas Medical Staff; MICHAEL MOORE,
Karas Medical Staff; and KARAS HEALTH
CARE COMPANY, LLC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Justin Stearns (Stearns), filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging violations of his constitutional rights while he was detained at the Washington County
Detention Center (WCDC). He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP).
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Timothy L.
Brooks, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of
making a Report and Recommendation. The case is before the Court on Stearns’ failure to obey
the Orders of the Court.
I. DISCUSSION
Stearns was incarcerated in the WCDC when he filed his Complaint. (ECF No. 1). When
he filed this case, Stearns was specifically advised that he was required to immediately inform
the Court of any change of address. (ECF No. 3). If Stearns was transferred or released, he was
told he must advise the Court of any change in his address by no later than thirty (30) days from
the time of his transfer to another facility or his release. Additionally, Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local
Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas requires pro se parties to “promptly notify
the Clerk and 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.”
On July 13, 2023, Sheriff Cantrell filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of
exhaustion. (ECF No. 12). That same day, an Order was entered requiring Stearns to file his

response by August 3, 2023. (ECF No. 15). On July 26, 2023, the Court received returned mail
with a notation that Stearns was no longer at the WCDC. No forwarding address was provided.
The mail returned was the Court Order requiring Stearns to respond to the Summary Judgment
Motion. (ECF No. 15).
Stearns had thirty days, or until August 25, 2023, to advise the Court of his new address.
To date, Stearns has not provided a new address or contacted the Court in anyway. The last
documents filed by Stearns in this case were his Complaint and application to proceed IFP filed
on April 20, 2023. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2).
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). Stearns failed to
comply with the Court Order directing him to provide a new address and failed to prosecute this
case.

II. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 5.5(c)(2)
of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas.
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger

de novo review by the district court.
DATED this 8th day of September 2023.
s/ Christy Comstock
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10632818. Public record. Not legal advice.