Kidd v. Mitchell et al

Filing 38

ORDER granting 36 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 5/8/13. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
TRAVIS RENARD KIDD, JR.
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:11CV00792 KGB

PAUL MITCHELL, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 36). Plaintiff Travis Renard
Kidd, Jr. has not responded. Defendants move to dismiss based on Mr. Kidd’s failure to comply
with this Court’s Orders.
As an initial matter, Mr. Kidd has twice been given notice that he is required to comply
with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western
Districts of Arkansas, which provides that pro se litigants are required to monitor the progress of
their case, to prosecute or defend the action diligently, and to respond to any communication
from the Court within 30 days or their case could be dismissed without prejudice (Dkt. Nos. 27,
35).
By Order dated December 12, 2012, this Court instructed Mr. Kidd to supplement and
comply with defendants’ discovery requests. In their pending motion to dismiss, defendants
state that Mr. Kidd has altogether failed to comply with the December 12, 2012, Order.
Moreover, Mr. Kidd has not responded to the motion to dismiss.
For these reasons, the Court finds that Mr. Kidd’s claims should be and hereby are
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). The Court notes that defendants
have moved to dismiss under Rules 37(b)(2) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 37(b)(2) provides that the Court may dismiss a proceeding in whole or in part when a party

fails to obey a discovery order. Rule 41(b) provides that a defendant may move to dismiss an
action when a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.”
Although these provisions likely provide alternative and independent bases for dismissal, the
Court dismisses this action without prejudice based on Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted (Dkt. No. 36). Judgment will be entered
accordingly.
SO ORDERED this the 8th day of May, 2013.

_____________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

2