Wells v. Holmes
ORDER granting 29 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on September 14, 2020. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
LANCE DANIEL WELLS
Civil No. 1:19-cv-01057
NURSE STEPHANIE HOLMES, Ouachita
County Detention Center; SHERIFF NORWOOD;
CAPTAIN OWENS; and DEPUTY CHRIS
Plaintiff Lance Daniel Wells filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on December 3,
2019. (ECF No. 1). On February 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 14).
On February 13, 2020, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge
to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry
of a final judgment, and conducting all post-judgment proceedings. (ECF No. 17). Before the
Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a Court order.
On August 12, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss stating they have been unable
to effect service of correspondence on Plaintiff. (ECF No. 29). Counsel for Defendants filed an
affidavit stating correspondence sent to Plaintiff at his address of record on July 27, 2020 was
returned to counsel marked “Paroled” and “Return to Sender” on August 6, 2020. (ECF No. 31).
On August 12, 2020, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss by September 2, 2020. (ECF No. 32). The order informed Plaintiff that failure
to timely and properly comply with the order would result in this case being dismissed. Id. On
September 10, 2020, the order was returned to the Court as undeliverable indicating “Paroled” and
“Return to Sender”. (ECF No. 34).
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).
Plaintiff has failed to inform the Court of his current address and has failed to prosecute
this case. 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. 29) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14) is DISMISSED
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 14th day of September 2020.
Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?