Temple v. Mendez et al
ORDER dismissing case without prejudice; plaintiff failed to comply with any of the Court's orders. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on June 15, 2017. (cnn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
Civil No. 1:16-cv-1037
NURSE SHERYL MENDEZ, Ouachita County Detention
Center (OCDC); JAIL SUPERVISOR DOUG
WOODS, OCDC; and JAIL ADMINISTRATOR
JAMES BOLTON, OCDC
Before the Court is Plaintiff Anthony Temple’s failure to keep the Court informed of his
current address. On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se. (ECF No.
1). Also on May 18, 2016, the Court filed an order which, among other things, advised Plaintiff
that failure to keep the Court informed of a valid current address may result in dismissal of this
case. (ECF No. 3). On September 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, stating
that he had been moved to the Ouachita County Jail, and requesting that his address be changed
accordingly. (ECF No. 13). On January 6, 2017, mail sent to Plaintiff at his address of record at
the time – Ouachita County Jail, 109 Goodgame Street, Camden, Arkansas 71701 – was returned
to the Court as undeliverable with no forwarding address, indicating that he was no longer there.
(ECF No. 15). On January 18, 2017, a new address for Plaintiff was located, based on research
by the Court. 1
On May 2, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 16). On
May 11, 2017, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to the motion for
summary judgment by June 8, 2017. (ECF No. 19). The order was mailed to the Plaintiff’s
This address is 31 Sundown Cove, Cabot, Arkansas 72023.
address of record. On May 23, 2017, the order directing Plaintiff to file a response was returned
as undeliverable. On May 24, 2017, the Court issued an order to show cause, ordering Plaintiff
to respond to the Court by June 8, 2017 as to why he failed to inform the Court of his current
address. (ECF No. 20). On June 6, 2017, the show cause order was returned as undeliverable.
(ECF No. 21). As of the date of this Order’s entry, Plaintiff has not filed a response to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court
since September 19, 2016.
Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a pro se litigant is not excused
from complying with substantive and procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th
Cir. 1984). The local rules state 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).
Additionally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a
case on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with orders of the
court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (stating that
the district court possesses 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) (emphasis
In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this matter and has failed to keep the
Court informed of his current address. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the Court finds that this case should be dismissed. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of June, 2017.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District 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?