Her Many Horses v. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs et al

Filing 10

ORDER Dismissing Case. Signed by Chief Judge Jeffrey L. Viken on 7/14/16. (SB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
STEVE HER MANY HORSES,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CIV. 15-5041-JLV
ORDER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR; BUREAU OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS; TIM LAPOINTE, GREAT
PLAINS REGIONAL DIRECTOR;
SEBASTIAN LEBEAU, ACTING
SUPERINTENDENT, PINE RIDGE
AGENCY; and JOE WALN,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Steve Her Many Horses filed a complaint seeking injunctive and
declaratory relief against the defendants. (Docket 1). Mr. Her Many Horse’s
complaint asks the court to require the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the United
States Department of the Interior to rescind a land lease on the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation and award the lease to plaintiff. Id.
On September 4, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s
complaint, together with a supporting brief and a declaration. (Dockets 5-7).
On September 25, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking additional time to
respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Docket 8). On October 5, 2015,
the court granted plaintiff’s motion. (Docket 9). The order granted plaintiff an
extension until October 22, 2015, to file his response to the defendants’ motion
to dismiss. Id. As of the date of this order plaintiff has not filed a response to

the defendants’ motion, has not sought a further extension of time within which
to file his response and the time for doing so has expired.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are to “be construed, administered,
and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
Local rules of the court require a party within the time specified by the court to
“file a responsive brief containing opposing legal arguments and authorities in
support thereof.” D.S.D. Civ. LR 7.1(B). The court finds Mr. Her Many Horses
failed to satisfy the October 5, 2015, order and D.S.D. Civ. LR 7.1(B).
“A district court has [the] power to dismiss an action for refusal of the
plaintiff to comply with any order of court, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and such action
may be taken on the court’s own motion.” Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528
(8th Cir. 1984). “A district court has discretion to dismiss an action under [Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b)] for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, or to comply with Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure or any court order.” Henderson v. Renaissance Grand
Hotel, 267 Fed. App’x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); see also Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-33 (1962) (holding a district court may
dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) on its own initiative and “without affording
notice of its intention to do so or providing an adversary hearing before acting[,]”
and recognizing a district court has the inherent authority to “manage [its] own
affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases[]”).

2

The court finds dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint is appropriate given
his disregard of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court’s order and the
court’s local rules.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint (Docket 1) is dismissed without
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket
5) is denied as moot.
Dated July 14, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Viken
JEFFREY L. VIKEN
CHIEF JUDGE

3