Sterling v. Black et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER STERLING 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:25-cv-04074-SOH-CDC
SHERIFF JEFF BLACK;
JAIL ADMINISTRATOR RAMI COX;
and OFFICER JOE TOWNSEND 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Christopher Sterling, 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. Pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States
District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and
Recommendation.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initially filed his Complaint on September 10, 2025. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s
Complaint was provisionally filed with instruction for Plaintiff to submit an application to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”) or pay the full filing fee by October 1, 2025. (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff
complied and was granted IFP status on September 30, 2025. (ECF No. 6).
Also on September 30, 2025, the Court determined Plaintiff had not sufficiently stated how
each named Defendant violated his federal constitutional rights. Accordingly, the Court ordered
Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint by October 21, 2025. 	(ECF No. 7). 	The Court
specifically advised Plaintiff:
Case 4:25-cv-04074-SOH Document 12 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements telling the
Court: the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; the name of the
Defendant who violated the right; exactly what the Defendant did or failed to do;
how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of the
constitutional rights; and what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of the
misconduct of that Defendant.
(ECF No. 7). 	Plaintiff was also advised that failure to respond to this Order would subject this
case to dismissal. Id.
Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on October 15, 2025. (ECF No. 9). However, after
a review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint the Court found it was unable to determine the event
or facts which Plaintiff alleged caused his constitutional violation. 	(ECF No. 10). 	The Court
specifically explained to Plaintiff in this Order:
. . . the Court reminds Plaintiff it cannot read his Original Complaint together with
his First Amended Complaint in order to determine what happened to him, what
constitutional violation claims he is asserting, and who caused those constitutional
violations.
(ECF No. 10). This Order was mailed to Plaintiff’s address of record, and it was not returned as
undeliverable mail. Plaintiff failed to respond.
On November 14, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to
show cause why he failed to respond with the Second Amended Complaint as ordered by the Court.
(ECF No. 11). 	Plaintiff was given until December 5, 2025 to respond and he was advised that
failure to do so would subject this case to dismissal. 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 not communicated with the Court since October 15, 2025. (ECF No. 9).
II. 	DISCUSSION
Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a pro se litigant is not excused
Case 4:25-cv-04074-SOH Document 12 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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
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
Case 4:25-cv-04074-SOH Document 12 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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 multiple Court Orders.
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 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
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 11th day of February 2026.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-04074-SOH Document 12 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>