Holliday v. Roberson et al
ORDER dismissing Holliday's 2 complaint without prejudice and denying as moot 52 motion to set aside service. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 6/7/2021. (jbh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
No: 4:20-cv-00490 PSH
JONATHON WOODSON, et al.
Plaintiff Russell Holliday filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 on May 8, 2020 (Doc. No. 2), and was subsequently granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (Doc. No. 3). On April 28,
2021, Holliday notified the Court of a new free-world address, indicating that he had
been released from custody (Doc. No. 50). The same day, the Court ordered
Holliday to submit the remainder of the $350.00 filing fee or file a fully completed
and signed IFP application reflecting his free-world financial status within 30 days
(Doc. No. 51). Holliday was cautioned that failure to comply with the Court’s order
within that time would result in the dismissal of his case, without prejudice, pursuant
to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
More than 30 days have passed since the Court entered its April 28 Order, and
Holliday has not complied or otherwise responded to the order. 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 HEREBY ORDERED THAT Holliday’s complaint (Doc. No. 2) is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the pending motion to set aside service
filed by Defendant Charles Golden (Doc. No. 52) is denied as moot.
DATED this 7th day of June, 2021.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?