Stout v. Southeast Arkansas Department of Community Corrections

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. An ifp appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 11/29/12. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION SHIRLEY K. STOUT, ADC #754803 v. PLAINTIFF 5:12-cv-380-DPM-JTR SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS DEFENDANT ORDER Stout has filed this prose§ 1983 action alleging that her constitutional rights were violated at the Southeast Arkansas Department of Community Corrections. Document No. 2. On 23 October 2012, the Court ordered Stout to file a Substituted Compliant. Document No. 3. Importantly, the Court advised Stout that if she failed to do so within thirty days, her lawsuit would be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), which provides that: 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. A party appearing for himself/herself shall sign his/her pleadings and state his/her address, zip code, and telephone number. 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. Any party proceeding pro se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Emphasis added). Stout has not complied with the 23 October 2012 order, and the time for doing so has expired. This case is therefore dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). An in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. 1/ United States District Judge -2-

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?