Harrison v. Shoemaker, et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Dismiss Case (CASE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE). Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on June 12, 2018. (cnn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JERRY HARRISON

v.

PLAINTIFF

Civil No. 4:18-cv-4021

OFFICER SHOEMAKER, Miller
County Detention Center (MCDC);
and NURSE CHELSIE, MCDC

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Plaintiff Jerry Harrison filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se and in forma pauperis on
February 15, 2018. (ECF No. 1). Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant
Officer Shoemaker. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff has not responded to the motion and the time to do
so has passed. The court finds this matter ripe for consideration.
On February 15, 2018, the Court entered an order advising Plaintiff that he is required to
inform the Court of any change of address within thirty days of the change. (ECF No. 3). The
order further advised Plaintiff that failure to inform the Court of an address change would result
in this case being subject to dismissal. The Court’s order was not returned as undeliverable.
On April 16, 2018, counsel for Defendant Shoemaker mailed correspondence to Plaintiff
requesting that he respond to past-due discovery. (ECF No. 17). The correspondence and
enclosures were returned to counsel’s office on April 25, 2018, marked “Return to Sender –
Refused – Unable to forward” and “RTS Not Here.” (ECF No. 17-1). On May 8, 2018, Defendant
Shoemaker filed the instant motion to dismiss, stating that his counsel had been unable to effect
service of correspondence and discovery requests upon Plaintiff. Defendant Shoemaker argues
this case should be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court informed of his address.

On May 8, 2018, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to
Dismiss by May 29, 2018. (ECF No. 18). The order was mailed to Plaintiff’s address of record
at the Miller County Correctional Facility, 2300 East Street, Texarkana, AR 71854. On May 29,
2018, the order was returned to the Court as undeliverable, marked “Return to Sender, not here.”
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
. . . 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. 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. 15) is hereby
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 12th day of June, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

2