Johnson v. White County Detention Center et al

Filing 23

ORDER dismissing without prejudice 2 Johnson's complaint; and denying as moot 15 Defendant's pending motion for summary judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 11/20/2017. (ljb)

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

ANTONIO JOHNSON

v.

PLAINTIFF

No: 4:17-cv-00029 PSH

RICKY ROSS

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Plaintiff Antonio Johnson filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January
17, 2017 (Doc. No. 2). Mail sent to Johnson by the Court was returned as undeliverable, and the
envelope was entered on the docket. See Doc. No. 20. On October 10, 2017, the Court entered a
text order notifying Johnson that the mail could not be delivered to him because he was no longer
at the address he provided. See Doc. No. 21. Johnson was directed to provide notice of his current
mailing address by no later than thirty days from the entry of the October 10, 2017 text order. He
was warned that his failure to provide a current mailing address would cause the undersigned to
recommend his complaint be dismissed. 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 Johnson
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. 22.
More than 30 days have passed, and Johnson has not complied or otherwise responded to
the October 10 order. Johnson 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 Johnson’s complaint (Doc. No. 2) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Further, Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment (Doc. No.
15) is DENIED as MOOT.
SO ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2017.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE