Brasel et al vs. Weyerhaeuser Company et al
ORDER Dismissing With Prejudice the claims of Plaintiffs Rena Karla Howard and Jeffrey Wayne Deer for failure to comply with 295 Order Directing Pleading to be Filed. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on March 24, 2014. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
RHONDA BRASEL, Individually and as
Next Best Friend and Guardian of
Christopher Albright and Nathan K.
Thomas, et al.
CASE NO. 4:07cv4037
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY and DOES 1
On January 30, 2014, the Court entered an Order directing pro se Plaintiffs 1 to file a
response to Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Take-Nothing Judgment with Prejudice on the
Entire Case. (ECF No. 295). Plaintiffs did not file a response as directed. On March 4, 2014, the
Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause to the Court why they had not responded to Defendant’s
motion. (ECF No. 298). The Order stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal. On
March 10, 2014, Plaintiffs responded to the Show Cause Order by filing a Motion to Appoint
Counsel stating that they needed help understanding the “legal format” and some of the legal
terms. (ECF Nos. 299 and 300). Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel was denied on March 12,
2014, and the Court reminded Plaintiffs of their obligation to comply with the Show Cause Order
on or before March 18, 2014. (ECF No. 302).
Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Show Cause Order and have failed to obey the
Court’s order to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Take-Nothing Judgment with
Prejudice on the Entire Case. Plaintiffs state that the reason they have not yet filed their response
In this Order, the term “Plaintiffs” refers to Jeffrey Wayne Deer and Rena Karla Howard.
is that they do not understand the legal process or the legal terms. This reason, however, does
not excuse Plaintiffs from filing a response to Defendant’s motion. See Schooley v. Kennedy, 712
F.2d 372, 373 (8th Cir. 1983) (“Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, pro se
litigants are not excused from compliance with relevant rules of the procedural and substantive
law.”) Further, Plaintiffs’ inability to retain counsel does not excuse their failure to file the
response. Id. at 374. Plaintiffs have been reminded twice to file a response to Defendant’s
motion. (ECF Nos. 298 and 302).
Because Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Order (ECF No. 295) directing them to
file the response and because Plaintiffs have not stated an adequate reason for not complying
with the Order, the Court finds that their claims should be and hereby are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 24th day of March, 2014.
/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?