Escobar v. Cross et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting 18 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; dismissing 2 Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 2/27/2013. (srw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
LUIS ESTUARDO ESCOBAR,
ADC # 117679
v.

PLAINTIFF

4:12CV00023-JJV

J. CROSS, Corporal, Wrightsville Unit,
Arkansas Department of Correction; et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

While an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Correction’s Ouachita River Unit,
Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint (Doc. No. 2) pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1983, alleging the
Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss due to
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 5.5 of the Local Rules of Court. (Doc. No. 18.)
I.

ANALYSIS
An action may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b), if the plaintiff fails to prosecute,

or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any order of the Court. See Aziz
v. Wright, 34 F.3d 587, 589 (8th Cir. 1994); Haley v. Kansas City Star, 761 F.2d 489, 490
(8th Cir. 1985). FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
Defendants submitted evidence that Plaintiff was deported to Guatemala by the United
States Department of Homeland Security-Immigration and Customs Enforcement on
November 21, 2012. (Doc. No. 18-1.) Plaintiff failed to notify the Clerk of the Court and
the other parties to this action of the change in his address. Defendants also assert that as a
result of Plaintiff’s deportation, they are unable to engage in meaningful discovery. (Doc.

No. 19.)
Pro se litigants are required to follow the same rules of procedure, including the local
court rules, that govern other litigants. Settlemire v. Watson, 877 F.2d 12, 14 (8th Cir. 1989).
Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) requires a pro se plaintiff to “promptly” notify the Clerk of any change
in his or her address. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules of the Court and his
Complaint (Doc. No. 2) is, therefore, DISMISSED without prejudice.
III.

CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED THAT:
1.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 18) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s

Complaint (Doc. No. 2) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2.

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

pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in
good faith.
DATED this 27th day of February, 2013.

JOE J. VOLPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2