Beck v. Southwest Arkansas Community Correction Center et al
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on November 16, 2017. (cnn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CRAIG GRAYSON BECK
Civil No. 4:17-CV-04033
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al.
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 failure to prosecute this
On July 28, 2017, the Court entered an Order (ECF No. 23) directing Plaintiff to submit a
Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff’s Response was
due by August 30, 2017, and the Order advised Plaintiff that failure to timely and properly comply
with the Order could result in the dismissal of this action for failure to obey an order and failure to
prosecute. (ECF No. 23). The Order was not returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff did not respond.
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.
A party appearing for himself/herself shall sign his/her pleadings. . . . 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 ground 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 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).
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order directing him to respond to a Motion
for Summary Judgment and has failed to prosecute this matter. As such, 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. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of November 2017.
/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?