Page v. Wood et al
ORDER granting 16 Motion to Dismiss Case (CASE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE). Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on October 18, 2017. (cnn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
CASE NO. 1:17-CV-01024
CAPTAIN DOUG WOOD, Columbia
County Detention Center (“CCDC”);
SHERIFF MIKE LOE, Columbia County,
Arkansas; GREG HAWLEY, Jail Administrator;
SERGEANT DODD, CCDC; and OFFICER
TYLER C., CCDC
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff has not
responded. The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.
Plaintiff Kenneth Page filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on March 27, 2017. (ECF
No. 1). On July 13, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel answers to discovery requests.
(ECF No. 11). On August 1, 2017, the Court granted the Motion to Compel and directed Plaintiff
to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests by August 17, 2017. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff was
advised in the order that failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this case. On September
26, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) stating Plaintiff never responded to
Defendants’ discovery requests despite this Court’s order to do so. Plaintiff’s last communication
with the Court was September 25, 2017, when he submitted a change of address. (ECF No. 15).
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. 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 prosecute this matter and has failed to obey a
court order. 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, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No. 16) should be and hereby is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims as to all Defendants are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of October, 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?