Opinion

Sutterfield v. Montgomery

Court
District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Filed
Feb 7, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.3%

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

HARRISON DIVISION

TYLER SUTTERFIELD PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 3:24-cv-03053-MEF

SHERIFF JOHN MONTGOMERY,

Baxter County, Arkansas;

DR. JEFF TATE, Medical Provider for the Baxter

County Detention Center (BCDC); and

LIEUTENANT TABITA MAZE,

Jail Administrator, BCDC DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to this Court’s General Order 2024-02, this case was directly assigned to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge. Because not all parties to the action have consented to the

jurisdiction of the undersigned, however, and Plaintiff’s claims require dismissal, the undersigned

enters his findings as a Report and Recommendation, and the case will automatically be reassigned

to United States District Judge Timothy L. Brooks. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Rule 73 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure; General Order 2024-02.

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). He proceeds pro se

and has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff was

incarcerated in the Baxter County Detention Center (“BCDC”) at the time he filed his Complaint

(ECF No. 1 at 1).

When he filed this case, Plaintiff was informed that his IFP motion was deficient because

he failed to attach the required certificate of account. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff was given until

1

January 6, 2025, to either submit the certificate of account or pay the filing fee. Id. Plaintiff

was also given until January 6, 2025, to submit an Amended Complaint on the Court’s approved

§ 1983 form. Id.

In the same order, Plaintiff was specifically advised that he was required to immediately

inform the Court of any change of address. (ECF No. 3). If Plaintiff was transferred or released,

Plaintiff was told he must advise the Court of any change in his address no later than thirty (30)

days from the time of his transfer to another facility or his release. Id. 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 December 30, 2024, mail was returned as undeliverable from the BCDC. (ECF No. 5).

The returned mail included the Court’s Order directing the submission of a certificate of account

or the filing fee and the filing of an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff had 30 days,

or until January 29, 2025, to provide the Court with a new address.

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.

2

To date, Plaintiff has not provided a new address or contacted the Court in anyway. In

fact, the last thing filed by the Plaintiff in this case was his Complaint and Motion to Proceed IFP

filed on December 16, 2024. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2). The Court has confirmed by review of the

BCDC detainee roster than Plaintiff is not incarcerated in that facility.1

II. CONCLUSION

For this reason, 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.

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.

DATED this 7th day of February 2023.

/s/

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 https://www.baxtercountysheriff.com/roster.php?term=Tyler+Sutterfield&search=Y (last

visited February 6, 2025).

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.