Brasel et al vs. Weyerhaeuser Company et al

Filing 303

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)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION RHONDA BRASEL, Individually and as Next Best Friend and Guardian of Christopher Albright and Nathan K. Thomas, et al. V. PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 4:07cv4037 WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY and DOES 1 through 100 DEFENDANTS ORDER 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 1 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 2

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?