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
FORT SMITH DIVISION
MICHAEL LEE SARGENT PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 2:24-cv-02028-PKH-MEF
OFFICER HAMBY,
Van Buren Police Department;
OFFICER TREEWILLIGER,
Van Buren Police Department; and
OFFICER REED DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable P. K. Holmes,
III, Senior 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 Plaintiff’s failure to obey
the Court’s Orders.
I. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff, Michael L. Sargent, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on
February 28, 2024. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff is incarcerated in the
Crawford County Detention Center.
Because both his Complaint and Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) were deficient,
Plaintiff was ordered to file an Amended Complaint and a complete IFP application by March 20,
2024. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff was informed that failure to comply with the Order “shall subject
the case to dismissal.” Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on March 8, 2024. (ECF No. 5).
He also filed another IFP Motion; however, this Motion to proceed IFP was again deficient. (ECF
No. 6). He failed to have the certificate of account regarding funds being held in his name
completed by detention center officials. An Order was entered informing Plaintiff of this
deficiency and advising him that the certificate of account was necessary before the Court could
rule on his IFP application. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff was given until April 1, 2024, to provide the
necessary certificate of account. Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Order “shall
subject the case to dismissal.”
Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with his certificate of account. On April 3, 2024, out
of an abundance of caution and to ensure procedural fairness, a Show Cause Order was entered.
(ECF No. 8). Plaintiff was given until April 24, 2024, to show cause for his failure to obey the
Orders of the Court.
To date, Plaintiff has not submitted his certificate of account. He has not responded to the
Show Cause 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. 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.
II. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended that pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff’s failure
to prosecute this case; his failure to obey the orders of the Court; and his failure to comply with
Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Further, it is recommended that the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith.
Status of Referral: The referral terminates upon the filing of this Report and
Recommendation.
The parties have fourteen (14) 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 29th day of April 2024.
/s/
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE