Curry v. Hawley et al
ORDER ; plaintiff failed to obey court orders; case dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on March 13, 2018. (cnn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
CEDRIC PERNELL CURRY
Civil No. 1:17-cv-1048
JAIL ADMINISTRATOR GREG,
HAWLEY, Columbia County Detention
Facility (CCDF); DR. DARRELL ELKIN,
Physician for CCDF; DOUG WOODS, Chief
Deputy, CCDF; and SHERIFF MIKE LOE,
Columbia County, Arkansas
Before the Court is Cedric Pernell Curry’s failure to obey orders of the Court. On July 21,
2017, Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se. (ECF No. 1). On February 12, 2018,
Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 14). On February 13, 2018, the
Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file a Response to Defendants’ motion on or before
March 6, 2018. (ECF No. 17). That same day, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to
complete and submit an updated in forma pauperis application to reflect his free world financial
status by March 6, 2018. 1 (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff was advised in each of these orders that failure
to respond within the required period of time may result in the dismissal of his case. To date,
Plaintiff has not responded to either of the Court’s orders or filed a Response to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment. 2
Plaintiff had previously indicated in a notice of address change that he was no longer incarcerated. (ECF No. 9).
Neither of the Court’s orders have been returned as undeliverable.
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 relevant 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 two orders 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. 1) is DISMISSED
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of March, 2018.
/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?