East v. McGough

Filing 19

ORDER re 1 Complaint Referred (42:1983) filed by Daniel East; case dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Court orders and to prosecute. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on February 18, 2016. (cnn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
DANIEL EAST
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 1:15-cv-01019

SHERIFF MIKE
MCGOUGH

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Plaintiff, Daniel East, submitted this pro se action for filing on April 8, 2015. ECF No. 1.
Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s failure to follow a Court Order and failure to prosecute.
On April 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Complaint (ECF No. 1) and the Court granted him in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. The IFP Order advised Plaintiff to keep the Court apprised of any
address changes or face dismissal of his case. ECF No. 3. On October 19, 2015, mail sent to
Plaintiff at the Union County Criminal Justice Facility was returned as undeliverable. On October
20, 2015, the Court entered an Order changing Plaintiff’s address to the home address he provided
to the justice facility when he was booked.1 The Order was not returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff
has not communicated with the Court since April 8, 2015.
On December 18, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel, stating that Plaintiff had failed
to respond to discovery requests. ECF No. 12. On January 14, 2016, the Court entered an Order
granting this motion. ECF No. 15. In the Order, Plaintiff was directed to respond to the discovery
requests by February 1, 2016. Plaintiff was also advised that failure to respond could result in
dismissal of the case. ECF No. 15. The Order was sent to Plaintiff, and it was not returned as
undeliverable. On February 4, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, requesting this case be
dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff had not complied with the Court’s Order. ECF No. 17.
While pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a pro se litigant is not excused from

1

The Order was mailed to 3402 King Street, El Dorado, Arkansas 71730.

complying with substantive and procedural law. See Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984).
Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) states in pertinent part:
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. . . . 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.
Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) (emphasis added).
Additionally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case
on the grounds the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with orders of the Court. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (the district court
possess the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). Pursuant to Rule 41(b), a district court has
the power to dismiss an action based on “the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any Court order.” Brown
v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address as required by Local Rule
5.5(c)(2). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order granting Defendant’s Motion to
Compel directing him to respond to discovery requests. Plaintiff has also failed to prosecute this
matter. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), this
case should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Local Rules and
Orders and failure to prosecute this case. See Local Rule 5.5(c)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of February, 2016.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

2