Hicks v. Hobbs et al

Filing 22

ORDER dismissing pltf's complaint without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee, failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), and for failure to respond to the Court's Order 21 . Signed by Magistrate Judge H. David Young on 7/25/12. (vjt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HELENA DIVISION
ANTHONY HICKS
V.

PLAINTIFF
NO: 2:11CV00143 HDY

RAY HOBBS et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Plaintiff Anthony Hicks, a former Arkansas Department of Correction inmate, filed a pro se
complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on August 12, 2011, and he was granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. On August 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a change of address notice indicating that he
had been released from custody (docket entry #3-1).
On May 7, 2012, the Court entered an order scheduling this matter for a pre-jury evidentiary
hearing on October 23, 2012 (docket entry #19). That same order directed Plaintiff to file a list of
any proposed witnesses, and a statement of his intent to continue with the prosecution of this case,
no later than June 7, 2012, and warned him that his failure to respond could result in the dismissal
of his lawsuit. When Plaintiff failed to respond, on June 18, 2012, the Court entered an order
directing him to file his list of any proposed witnesses, as well as a statement of his intent to
continue with the prosecution of the case, within 30 days (docket entry #21). That order also
directed Plaintiff to pay the filing fee, or to submit an new in forma pauperis application which
reflects his free-world financial status within 30 days. Although more than 30 days have passed,
Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, filed a new application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
filed a list of proposed witnesses, filed a statement of his intent to continue with the prosecution of
this case, or otherwise responded to the order. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that

1

Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee, failure
to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), and for failure to respond to the Court’s order. See Miller v.
Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 168 (8th Cir. 1995) (District courts have inherent power to dismiss sua sponte
a case for failure to prosecute, and exercise of that power is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to pay the

filing fee, failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), and for failure to respond to the Court’s
order.
2.

The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and

judgment dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith.
DATED this 25

day of July, 2012.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2