Pettit v. Butler et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JASON SHAWN PETTIT 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:25-cv-04067-SGS
JAIL ADMINISTRATOR GINA BUTLER;
SHERIFF BOBBY WALRAVEN;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOHNSTON;
and SERGEANT JOHN PUMPHREY 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Jason Shawn Pettit filed this action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
The case was directly assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge; however, because not
all parties to the action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned, and this document
will 	be 	dispositive 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	claims, 	this 	document 	will 	be 	filed 	as 	a 	Report 	and
Recommendation and the case will automatically be reassigned to United States District Judge
Susan O. Hickey. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and General
Order 2024-02.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initially filed his claims on July 9, 2025. Pettit v. Walraven, Civil No. 4:25-cv-
04053-SOH. On August 12, 2025, the Court entered an Order severing Plaintiff’s Complaint in
that case into three cases, and opening the instant case for one of those severed claims. That Order
is filed in this case at (ECF No. 2). In this same severance Order, Plaintiff was ordered to file an
Amended Complaint in this case. Id. This Amended Complaint was due on September 2, 2025.
Case 4:25-cv-04067-SOH Document 5 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Id. Plaintiff was also directed to file an in forma pauperis (“IFP) application in this case. Plaintiff
was also specifically advised in this Order that failure to comply and submit an Amended
Complaint and IFP Application by September 2, 2025 would subject this case to dismissal. 	Id.
This Order was mailed to Plaintiff’s address of record and not returned as undeliverable mail.
Plaintiff failed to respond with either his Amended Complaint or IFP Application.
On September 16, 2025, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to
show cause why he failed to respond to the Court’s August 12, 2025 severance Order. (ECF No.
4). 	Plaintiff was ordered to respond by October 7, 2025. 	Id. 	This Order to Show Cause was
mailed to Plaintiff’s address of record, and it was not returned as undeliverable mail. 	Plaintiff
failed to respond.
Plaintiff has never filed any communications in this case.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a pro se litigant is not excused
from complying with substantive and procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir.
1984). The Local Rules state in pertinent part:
It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly notify the
Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her
address, to monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the
action diligently. . . . If any communication from the Court to a pro se
plaintiff is not responded to within thirty (30) days, the case may be
dismissed without prejudice. Any party proceeding pro se shall be expected
to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
Additionally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a
case on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with orders of the
court. Fed R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (stating the
Case 4:25-cv-04067-SOH Document 5 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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).
Furthermore, a dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) operates as an adjudication on the merits
unless it is otherwise specified. Fed R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown, 806 F.2d at 803. In considering a
Rule 41(b) dismissal, the Court must balance: (1) “the degree of [Plaintiff’s] egregious conduct;”
(2) the adverse impact of the conduct on the Defendants; and (3) the Court’s ability to administer
justice. 	Rodgers v. Curators of University of Missouri, 135 F.3d 1216, 1219 (8th Cir. 1998)
(internal quotations omitted). In Rodgers, the Eighth Circuit provides the standard the Court must
consider before dismissing with prejudice for failure to prosecute:
Dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction and should be used only in
cases of willful disobedience of a court order or . . . persistent failure to
prosecute a complaint. 	[The Court must consider] . . . 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. However, the [Court] need not [find]
that appellant acted in bad faith, only that he acted intentionally as opposed
to accidentally or involuntarily.
Id.
As evidenced by the docket, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Orders, and he
has failed to prosecute this matter. However, the Court does not find dismissal with prejudice is
warranted here. Accordingly, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Orders.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the
Court hereby recommends Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
Case 4:25-cv-04067-SOH Document 5 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
REFERRAL STATUS: The referral in this case shall be terminated.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 5th day of February 2026.
/s/ Spencer G. Singleton
HON. SPENCER G. SINGLETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-04067-SOH Document 5 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>