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
MARK ALLEN PINKSTON PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 3:25-cv-03053-CDC
SHERIFF JOHN MONTGOMERY, Baxter
County, Arkansas; and JAIL
ADMINISTRATOR TABITHA MAZE,
Baxter County Detention Center DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case is before the Court
on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the orders of the Court.
I. DISCUSSION
On December 11, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17).
The Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file a response to this Motion by January 2, 2026.
See ECF No. 20. The mailing of that Order to Plaintiff was not returned as undeliverable, but
Plaintiff never filed any response to Defendants’ Motion. Therefore, on January 9, 2026, this
Court entered another Order directing Plaintiff to show cause why he failed to obey the previous
Order, and imposing a deadline of January 30, 2026, for Plaintiff’s show-cause response. See ECF
No. 21. The mailing of the Court’s show-cause Order to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable.
See ECF No. 22. However, Plaintiff never provided the Court with his new address, despite having
previously been ordered to do so within thirty days of any change in his address. See ECF No. 7.
Plaintiff never responded to the show-cause Order.
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. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s case should be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s Local Rules and orders
and for failure to prosecute this case.
II. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case and his failure to
obey the orders of the Court. Judgment will be entered contemporaneously with this Order.
DATED this 24th day of February 2026.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE