Lancaster v. Kelly et al

Filing 20

ORDER dismissing 2 Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 6/20/2014. (srw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
ORLANDO LANCASTER
v.

PLAINTIFF
5:13CV00298-JJV

COURTNEY KELLEY, former
Correctional Officer, Dub Brassell,
Adult Detention Center, ADC

DEFENDANT
ORDER

On September 16, 2013, Orlando Lancaster (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se Complaint (Doc. No.
2) and an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (Doc. No. 1). On
September 30, 2013, Plaintiff’s Application was granted (Doc. No. 3) and he was informed of his
duty to comply with Local Rule of the Court 5.5(c)(2)1. Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) requires a pro se
plaintiff to “promptly” notify the Clerk of Court of any change in his address.
The docket reveals that Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). On May 2,
2014, a document mailed by the Clerk to Plaintiff was returned and marked “RTS [Return to Sender]
(NOT HERE)” (Doc. No. 17). In response, the Court entered an Order on May 23, 2014, directing

1

Local Rule of the Court 5.5(c)(2), states:

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.
Loc. R. 5.5(c)(2).
1

Plaintiff to provide the Clerk of Court with a current address (Doc. No. 18). On June 3, 2014, that
Order was also returned as undeliverable (Doc. No. 19). More than fourteen days have elapsed since
the Court directed Plaintiff to provide a new address. Pro se litigants must comply with all relevant
rules of procedure. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834-835 n.46 (U.S. 1975). Here, Plaintiff
has failed to do so and his claim is therefore DISMISSED.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 2) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Dated this 20th day of June, 2014.

JOE J. VOLPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2