Peden v. Mills et al

Filing 34

ORDER dismissing 2 Complaint without prejudice. Further, Defendants' 26 Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 10/10/2017. (jak)

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

CAREY WAYNE PEDEN
V.

PLAINTIFF
NO: 3:16-CV-00280 PSH

LARRY MILLS, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff Carey Wayne Peden filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on
October 11, 2016 (Doc. No. 2). On September 1, 2017, defendants Larry Mills and Mike Kindall
filed a notice stating that mail sent to Peden had been returned undeliverable with a notation that
Peden was no longer at the Poinsett County Detention Center (Doc. No. 30). Mail sent to Peden
by the Court was also returned as undeliverable, and the envelope was entered on the docket. See
Doc. No. 31. On September 5, 2017, the Court entered a text order notifying Peden that the mail
could not be delivered to him because he was no longer at the address he provided. See Doc. No.
32. Peden was directed to provide notice of his current mailing address by no later than thirty days
from the entry of the September 5, 2017 text order. He was warned that his failure to provide a
current mailing address could result in the dismissal of his complaint. A printed version of the text
order was sent to him at his last known address. The envelope containing the text order could not
be delivered to Peden because he was no longer at the address he provided, and the envelope was
returned to the Clerk of the Court and entered on the docket. See Doc. No. 33.
More than 30 days have passed, and Peden has not complied or otherwise responded to the
September 5 order. Peden also failed to notify the Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings
of a change in his address as required by Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Accordingly, the Court finds that

this action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2)
and failure to respond to the Court’s orders. 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 Peden’s complaint (Doc. No. 2) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Further, Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment (Doc. No.
26) is DENIED as MOOT.
DATED this 10th day of October, 2017.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE