Ward v. Grace et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting 28 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on October 16, 2020. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
CHASITY WARD
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 4:20-cv-04006

JAILER LACEY GRACE, Howard County
Detention Center (“HCDC”); and CHIEF
DEPUTY JOHN ERIC, HCDC

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Plaintiff Chasity Ward filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on January 13, 2020. (ECF
No. 1). On April 2, 2020, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate
Judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the
entry of a final judgment, and conducting all post-judgment proceedings. (ECF No. 21). Before
the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of this Court.
On September 1, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 28). The
following day, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’
motion by September 23, 2020. (ECF No. 29). This order informed Plaintiff that failure to timely
and properly comply with the order would result in this case being dismissed. To date, Plaintiff
has not complied with this Court’s order to file a response to the motion to dismiss and the order
has not been returned as undeliverable.
On September 24, 2020, the Court directed Plaintiff to show case as to why she failed to
file a response to Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 30). This order informed Plaintiff that failure to
show cause by October 5, 2020, would result in this case being dismissed. To date, Plaintiff has
not responded to the Court’s show cause order and the order has not been returned as undeliverable.

1

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).
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).
Plaintiff has failed to comply with orders of this Court 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, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 28) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of October 2020.

Barry A. Bryant

/s/
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2