Mangum v. Poinsett County Detention Center et al

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), this case is DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, due to Plaintiff's failure to timely & properly comply with the Court's 3/8/11 Order. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order & the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 4/13/2011. (jct)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
RANDY MANGUM
V.

PLAINTIFF
3:11CV00037 BRW/JTR

POINSETT COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, Randy Mangum, is a prisoner in the Poinsett County Detention Center.

In

February of 2011, he commenced this pro se § 1983 action alleging that Defendants violated his
constitutional rights. See docket entry #2. On March 8, 2011, the Court entered an Order giving
Plaintiff thirty days to file an Amended Complaint containing information necessary to complete the
screening process mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See docket entry #3. Importantly, the Court
advised Plaintiff that the failure to timely and properly do so would result in the dismissal of his
case, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).1 Id. As of the date of this Order of
Dismissal, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s March 8, 2011 Order, and the time for
doing so has expired.

1

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) provides that: “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. A party
appearing for himself/herself shall sign his/her pleadings and state his/her address, zip code, and
telephone number. 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.” (Emphasis
added.)

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), this case is DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,

due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely and properly comply with the Court’s March 8, 2011 Order.
2.

The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis

appeal from this Order of Dismissal and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good
faith.
Dated this 13th day of April, 2011.

/s/Billy Roy Wilson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE