Christopher v. Cagel

Filing 35

ORDER granting 29 Motion to Dismiss Case. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on November 2, 2018. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
KEVIN CORDARL CHRISTOPHER
v.

PLAINTIFF

Civil No. 4:18-cv-04020

OFFICER CAGEL, Miller
County Detention Center

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Plaintiff Kevin Cordarl Christopher filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se and in forma
pauperis on February 6, 2018. (ECF No. 1). On February 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint. (ECF No. 10). Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Officer
Cagel based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). (ECF No. 29).
Defendant sent discovery requests to Plaintiff in March of 2018. Because Plaintiff never
answered the discovery requests, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel on August 30, 2018. (ECF
No. 22). On September 17, 2018, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel directing
Plaintiff to provide Defendant with discovery responses by October 2, 2018. (ECF No. 24). On
September 20, 2018, this Order was returned to the Court marked “Return to Sender – Not
Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward.” (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff’s last communication
with the Court was on May 15, 2018. (ECF No. 19.) More than thirty days have passed since the
Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel was returned to the Court and Plaintiff has failed
to inform the Court of his current address.

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). Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) states 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).
Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court informed of his current address and has failed to
prosecute this case. 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, Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10) is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of November, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

2