Patton v. Riordon et al
ORDER case dismissed without prejudice; plaintiff failed to comply with rules of the court and prosecute this case. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on January 27, 2017. (cnn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
Case No. 1:16-cv-1097
CHRISTOPHER RIORDON and
Plaintiff Lamark Patton submitted this pro se action for filing on November 30, 2016.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case, Plaintiff’s failure to
respond to the Court’s order directing Plaintiff to submit a complete in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
application (ECF No. 6) and Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause.
(ECF No. 7).
On December 20, 2016, the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge
for the Western District of Arkansas, directed Plaintiff to complete and return an application to
proceed IFP with a certification regarding inmate funds held in his name. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff
was advised that if he failed to timely return the completed IFP form, his case may be dismissed
for failure to obey an order of the Court. Plaintiff did not respond. Judge Bryant then entered an
Order to Show Cause, directing Plaintiff to show by January 25, 2017, why he failed to respond
to the Court’s December 20, 2016 Order. (ECF No. 7). Again, Plaintiff did not respond.
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). 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).
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. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)
(stating 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)
Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and has failed to comply with two of the
Court’s Orders (ECF Nos. 6, 7). Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local Rule
5.5(c)(2), the Court finds that this case should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 27th day of January, 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?