Everett v. Mills et al

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing plaintiff Kenneth Everett's complaint without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 7/14/2010. (jct)

Download PDF
Everett v. Mills et al Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION KENNETH CHARLES EVERETT v. LARRY MILLS, et al. ORDER On May 7, 2010, plaintiff Kenneth Everett was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 4). Plaintiff, however, was directed to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the May 7 order because his complaint was too vague and conclusory to determine whether it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, or stated a legitimate cause of action. Plaintiff was advised that failure to amend the complaint would result in it being dismissed without prejudice. As of this date, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or any other correspondence. Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Rules of the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas provides as follows: 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. . . . Accordingly, plaintiff Kenneth Everett's complaint (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of July, 2010. 3:10CV00099 BSM JJV DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF Dockets.Justia.com _______________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?