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
RYAN ANDREW LUMLEY PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 5:24-cv-05252-CDC
OFFICER H. SERATT, Fayetteville Police
Department (FPD); OFFICER BENJAMIN
JAMES BRIXEY, FPD; OFFICER
KEENAN JAMAL ROBINSON, FPD; and
OFFICER JOSEPH BELL HALL, III, FPD 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 19, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31) Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6), on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to comply with this Court’s
previous Order (ECF No. 29) directing him to provide certain discovery responses to Defendants
by December 10, 2025. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss by January 9, 2026. See ECF No. 33. On January 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Response
which simply stated: “This is a notification to the court I intend to prosecute this matter. P.S. This
mail was significantly delayed due to Hurricane Mellisa in Jamaica,1 a catastrophic event.” See
ECF No. 34. However, this document did not provide any substantive response to Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss, and no substantive response has been filed at any point since then. On February
11, 2026, this Court entered a Show Cause Order, directing Plaintiff to show cause why this matter
1 Plaintiff lives in Jamaica.
should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s previous orders, and giving him a
deadline of March 4, 2026, by which to do so. See ECF No. 38. All the Orders discussed herein
were mailed to Plaintiff promptly after their filing, and none have been returned as undeliverable.
Plaintiff has not filed any response to this Court’s 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 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) 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 6th day of March 2026.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE