Garrison v. Bhardwaj et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
JABARES KENYON GARRISON 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:25-cv-05040-SGS
DEPUTY SURAJ BHARDWAJ, Benton
County Detention Center (BCDC); OFFICER
ZACHERY WILSON, BCDC; SERGEANT
KEVIN MILLER, BCDC; and DEPUTY
WHITE 	DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
Jabares Kenyon Garrison 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 February 2, 2026, the Defendants in this case filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 21). The next day, this Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file his response to
that Motion by February 24, 2026. 	See ECF No. 24. 	Plaintiff never filed any response; so on
March 4, this Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause why he failed to obey the
previous Order, and imposing a deadline of March 25, 2026 for Plaintiff’s show-cause response.
See ECF No. 26. 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
Case 5:25-cv-05040-SGS Document 27 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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.
The only remaining question is whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice.
A dismissal under Rule 41(b) operates as an adjudication on the merits unless otherwise specified.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986). 	“At the same time,
however, ‘dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b) is a drastic sanction which should be
exercised sparingly.’” Id. (quoting Pardee v. Stock, 712 F.2d 1290, 1292 (8th Cir. 1983)). “The
district court’s exercise of this power is within the permissible range of its discretion if there has
been a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.” Id. (internal citation and
quotations omitted). In considering a Rule 41(b) dismissal, the Court must balance “the degree of
egregious conduct which prompted the order of dismissal and to a lesser extent . . . the adverse
impact of such conduct upon both the defendant and the administration of justice in the district
court.” 	Rodgers v. Curators of University of Missouri, 135 F.3d 1216, 1219 (8th Cir. 1998)
(internal quotations omitted). In reviewing a dismissal with prejudice, the Eighth Circuit considers
“whether in the particular circumstances of the case, the needs of the court in advancing a crowded
docket and preserving respect for the integrity of its internal procedures are sufficient to justify the
harsh consequences of forever denying a litigant of his day in court.” Id. “However, the district
Case 5:25-cv-05040-SGS Document 27 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
court need not have found that [the plaintiff] acted in bad faith, only that he acted intentionally as
opposed to accidentally or involuntarily.” Id.
Given the relatively late stage in this case, along with the fact that Defendants have moved
for summary judgment, it is clear that the Defendants have expended significant resources on
discovery and motion practice. 	And since this Court’s orders have not been returned as
undeliverable when mailed to Plaintiff, it is also clear that Plaintiff has received notice of the
deadlines mentioned above, and that he has simply chosen not to comply with them. Accordingly,
the Court finds that Plaintiff’s intentional failure to comply with court orders, combined with the
resources expended by the Defendants, warrant this case being dismissed with prejudice.
II. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED
WITH 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 30th day of March 2026.
/s/ Spencer G. Singleton
HON. SPENCER G. SINGLETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-05040-SGS Document 27 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>