Martin v. Callwell

Filing 14

ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on March 8, 2018. (mll)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION TAVARUS MARQUEZ MARTIN v. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 4:17-cv-4117 OFFICER CALLWELL, Miller County Detention Center DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Tavarus Marquez Martin’s failure to obey a Court order. On December 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se. (ECF No. 1). The same day, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff was advised in the order that failure to inform the Court of a change of address would subject this case to dismissal. The order was not returned as undeliverable. On January 25, 2018, mail sent to Plaintiff at his address of record was returned to the Court as undeliverable with no new address available. (ECF No. 13). On February 12, 2018, mail sent to Plaintiff was again returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff’s last communication with the Court was on December 18, 2017, when he filed his Complaint. 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 1 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). In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court informed of his address. 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, Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of March, 2018. /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?