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
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
JOSEPH MICHAEL MAY PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 5:25-cv-05025-TLB-CDC
SHERIFF JAY CANTRELL, Washington
County, Arkansas; JOHN AND JANE DOE,
Employees of Karas Correctional Health;
JOHN AND JANE DOE, D-2 Officers, Washington
County Deputies; DEPUTIES JOHN AND JANE DOE,
Classification at the Washington County Detention Center (WCDC);
TENTON MARTIN #451, WCDC; and KARAS
CORRECTIONAL HEALTH, P.L.L.C. DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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 the Plaintiff’s failure to
obey an Order of the Court.
I. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center
(“WCDC”) at the time he filed his Complaint (ECF No. 1 at 1).
When he filed this case, Plaintiff was specifically advised (ECF No. 2) that he was required
to immediately inform the Court of any change of address. If Plaintiff was transferred or
released, Plaintiff was told he must advise the Court of any change in his address by no later than
1
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.”
At the direction of the Court, the WCDC defendants were asked to identify the classification
officers for January and February 2025 and the deputies working in pod D-2 on February 11,
2025, through February 11, 2025. (ECF No. 30). Further, Karas Correctional Heather was
directed to identify the names of the employees it had working at the WCDC during the time of
Plaintiff’s incarceration. (ECF No. 25).
Due to the identification of the potential John or Jane Doe parties, Plaintiff was granted
leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 26). The Second Amended Complaint
was originally due by April 29, 2025. Id. However, the time was extended to May 12, 2025,
due to the identification of the WCDC John and Jane Doe parties. (ECF No. 31). On June 3,
2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend his time to file the Second Amended Complaint. (ECF
No. 37). The motion was granted, and Plaintiff was given until July 10, 2025, to file the Second
Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 39). This Order advised the Plaintiff that failure to comply
with the Order would result in the dismissal of the case. Id.; see also (ECF Nos. 2, 8, 26, 31, 33)
(all advising Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the case).
On June 27, 2025, Plaintiff advised the Court that he was transferred to the Benton County
Detention Center (“BCDC”). (ECF No. 40). On July 9, 2025, mail was returned from the
BCDC as undeliverable with a notation he was no longer in the detention center. (ECF No. 41).
Plaintiff had until August 8, 2025, to advise the Court of his new address.
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).
To date, Plaintiff has not provided a new address or contacted the Court in anyway.
Plaintiff has not filed his Second Amended Complaint which was due by July 11, 2025. In fact,
the last thing filed by the Plaintiff in this case was his notice of change of address to the BCDC.
The Court has confirmed by review of the BCDC detainee roster than Plaintiff is not currently
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.
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.
1 https://benton-so-ar.zuercherportal.com/#/inmates (last accessed August 11, 2025).
3
Status of Referral: The referral terminates upon the filing of this Report and
Recommendation.
RECOMMENDED this 25th day of August 2025.
s/ Christy Comstock
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4