Reece v. Norwood et al

Filing 20

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE; plaintiff failed to comply with court orders. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on September 22, 2017. (cnn)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION CARLOS R. REECE V. PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 1:17-CV-01003 DAVID NORWOOD; DOUG WOODS; SHERRI MENDENALL; JAMES BOLTON; and BRYAN BURNS DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Carlos R. Reece’s failure to obey an order of the Court. On January 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ECF No. 2. On January 11, 2017, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division. ECF No. 4. On August 10, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 16. On August 15, 2017, the Court filed an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ motion on or before August 30, 2017. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff was advised in the order that failure to respond within the required period of time may result in the dismissal of his case. Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s order. Plaintiff’s last communication with the Court was on February 8, 2017. ECF No. 10. 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. 1 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 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) (emphasis added). In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to comply with an order of the Court. 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. 2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of September, 2017. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey 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?