The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
DAVID A. BRUCE PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 5:26-cv-05038-CDC
KARAS CORRECTIONAL HEALTH and
MAJOR RANDALL DENZER DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
David A. Bruce proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. The case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s
failure to obey the orders of the Court.
I. DISCUSSION
On June 22, 2026, the Defendants in this case filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12).
That same day, this Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file his response to that Motion
by July 13, 2026. See ECF No. 14. Plaintiff never filed any response; so on July 29, this Court
entered an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause why he failed to obey the previous Order, and
imposing a deadline of August 19, 2026 for Plaintiff’s show-cause response. See ECF No. 18.
Plaintiff never responded to that Order either, and his deadline to do so has now passed. Both
aforementioned Orders were mailed to Plaintiff, and neither was 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. 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. 7) 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of August 2026.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE