Presley v. Dumas et al, No. 2:2021cv02013 - Document 5 (W.D. Ark. 2021)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re 1 Complaint Referred (42:1983) filed by Brenton Presley case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiffs failure to prosecute this case. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on March 2, 2021. (jlm)

Download PDF
Presley v. Dumas et al Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION BRENTON PRESLEY PLAINTIFF v. Civil No. 2:21-cv-02013 CAPTAIN WILLIAM DUMAS, Sebastian County Detention Center; and SERGEANT EDDIE SMITH, Sebastian County Detention Center DEFENDANTS OPINION AND ORDER This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and has filed a motion (ECF No. 2) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Sebastian County Detention Center. By Order (ECF No. 3) entered on January 12, 2021, Plaintiff was notified that his IFP application was incomplete. Specifically, he failed to include the certificate regarding his inmate funds. The complete IFP application was to be filed by February 2, 2021. Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Order could result in the summary dismissal of the case for failure to obey a Court order. To date, Plaintiff has not filed the complete IFP application. Plaintiff has not sought an extension of time to comply with the Order. No mail has been 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, [1] Dockets.Justia.com 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, pursuant to Rule 41(b), this Complaint should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case, his failure to obey the order of the Court, and his failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of March 2021. /s/P.K. Holmes,III P. K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE [2]

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.