Flores v. Turn Key Health Clinics LLC et al, No. 5:2018cv05086 - Document 23 (W.D. Ark. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 13 Motion to Dismiss Party, Party Guyll (BCDC) and Holloway dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on September 10, 2018. (tg)

Download PDF
Flores v. Turn Key Health Clinics LLC et al Doc. 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION ADAM BROOKS FLORES v. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 5:18-cv-05086 TURN KEY HEALTH CLINICS, LLC; TRINITY SERVICES GROUP, INC; SHERIFF HOLLOWAY; CAPTAIN GUYLL; LIEUTENANT HOLT; and JOHN AND JANE DOES, Employees Of the Benton 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 in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Benton County Detention Center. On August 6, 2018, Separate Defendants Sheriff Holloway and Captain Guyll filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13). The Motion to Dismiss is premised on the fact that neither of these two Defendants are mentioned in the body of the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6). On August 9, 2018, an Order (ECF No. 18) was entered directing Plaintiff to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss by August 30, 2018. Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond to the Order would subject the case to dismissal, without prejudice. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss. He has not requested an extension of time to file his response. No mail has been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order (ECF No. 18) requiring him to file his Response by August 30, 2018. 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 order of the court. Fed. R. [1] Dockets.Justia.com 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. While the Court clearly has the authority to dismiss the entire case, the Court will limit the dismissal to Separate Defendants Sheriff Holloway and Captain Guyll. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 41(b), the Complaint should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to SEPARATE DEFENDANTS SHERIFF HOLLOWAY AND CAPTAIN GUYLL 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 10th day of September 2018. /s/P.K. Holmes,III P. K. HOLMES, III CHIEF 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.