Wilson v. Bailey
ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to respond to the March 8, 2011 order. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 4/25/11. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DANIEL R. WILSON,
CASE NO. 4:11CV00193 BSM/JTK
On March 8, 2011, plaintiff Daniel R. Wilson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
was granted. [Doc. No. 3]. Because his complaint was too vague and conclusory to permit
the screening mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, however, Wilson was directed to file an
amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Wilson was further advised that failure to comply
would result in the dismissal, without prejudice, of his complaint.
The copy of the order sent to Wilson was returned to sender on March 14, 2011. [Doc.
No. 6]. On that same date, Wilson notified the clerk’s office of a change in his address, and
a copy of the March 8, 2011, order was resent to him at the new address. [Doc. No. 7]. As
of this date, however, Wilson has not filed an amended complaint.
Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) 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 . . . .
In light of his failure to respond to the March 8, 2011, order, Wilson’s complaint is
hereby dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate judgment shall accompany this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of April, 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?