Elliott v. Ellis et al

Filing 24

ORDER inviting Plaintiff Elliott to submit a response by August 29, 2013, to Defendants' 22 Motion to Dismiss. If he elects to file a response, he shall show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Local Rules 5.5(c)(2). Signed by Magistrate Judge H. David Young on 8/9/2013. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
DEWAYNE ELLIOTT

v.

PLAINTIFF

NO. 3:10CV00267 SWW/HDY

CITY OF OSCEOLA, ARKANSAS; CHRISTOPHER ELLIS,
Individually and in his Official Capacity; MIKE BINGHAM,
Individually and in his Official Capacity; and
JOHN WELDON, Individually and in his Official Capacity

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On July 1, 2013, the Clerk of the Court entered a scheduling order at the direction
of the Court. See Document 20. The Order provided, in part, the following:

Plaintiff must inform the Court of the intent to continue with the
prosecution of this case, together with a statement of facts and any
witnesses deemed necessary, no later than Thursday, August 1, 2013.
Even if plaintiff does not submit a list of proposed witnesses, he/she
must inform the Court of the intent to continue with the prosecution of
this case, together with a statement of facts, by the above-mentioned
date. This must be filed with the Clerk’s Office, 600 West Capitol Avenue,
Suite #A149, Little Rock, AR 72201, Attention: Lorna Jones, and a copy
should also be mailed to opposing counsel. Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the
Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas provides that, if any communication from the Court to a pro se
plaintiff is not responded to within thirty days, the complaint may be
dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, please be aware that if you do
not respond to this order by Thursday, August 1, 2013, your lawsuit will
be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute.

See Document 20 at 2 [bold in original]. The aforementioned August 1, 2013, deadline
came and went without plaintiff Dewayne Elliott (“Elliott”) providing the Court with
notice of his intent to continue with the prosecution of this case.
On August 2, 2013, the defendants filed the pending motion to dismiss pursuant
to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). See Document 22. In the motion, they maintained that Elliott,
who is proceeding pro se, has not complied with the July 1, 2013, Order, and is not in
compliance with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). They therefore asked that his complaint be
dismissed.
Before giving serious consideration to the defendants’ motion, the Court invites
Elliott to submit a response. He is given up to, and including, August 29, 2013, to file a
response to the defendants’ motion. If he elects to file a response, he shall show cause
why his complaint should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Local Rule
5.5(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED this

9

day of August, 2013.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-