Sweetland v. Florane et al

Filing 24

ORDER dismissing this matter for failure to comply and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on July 23, 2018. (hnc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
DUSTIN SWEETLAND
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 2:17-CV-02153

DEPUTY FLORANCE

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Plaintiff proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court Order and to prosecute this case.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 6, 2018, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to provide the Court with
an address to serve Defendant Florance. (ECF No. 16). The Order noted that Defendant Florance
no longer worked at the Sebastian County Detention Center (SCDC), and the unexecuted summons
stated SCDC had no forwarding address available.

Plaintiff was directed to provide this

information by March 27, 2018. (ECF No. 16). On March 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to
Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 18), and a Motion asking the Court to Order Sheriff Hollenbeck to
provide service information for Defendant Florance. (ECF No. 17). These Motions were denied
(ECF Nos. 20, 21), and the Court entered a second Order directing Plaintiff to provide service
information for Defendant Florance. Plaintiff was directed to provide this information by May 1,
2018. (ECF No. 22). The Order was not returned as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has not
provided any response to the Order. Plaintiff provided the Court with a Notice of Address Change
on July 2, 2018, but has not provided any additional information regarding Defendant Florance.

1

II. LEGAL STANDARD
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 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 if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or fails 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 that 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).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to comply with a Court Order. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this
matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2),
Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s
Local Rules and Orders and failure to prosecute this case.

2

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of July 2018.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P. K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3