Garcia v. Murphy et al

Filing 22

JUDGMENT granting 18 Motion to Dismiss and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE based on Plaintiffs failure to prosecute this case and his failure to obey the orders of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b; see order for specifics. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on April 26, 2017. (rg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
RUDY GARCIA
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 5:16-cv-05279

DEPUTY AUSTIN MURPHY; DEPUTY
TREY KELL; and DEPUTY BRADEN

DEFENDANTS

JUDGMENT
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. Plaintiff
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.
When he filed this action, Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Benton County Detention
Center in Bentonville, Arkansas. Plaintiff was advised that he had the obligation to immediately
notify the Court of any changes in his address (Doc. 3).
Plaintiff was subsequently transferred to the Arkansas Department of Correction. He did
not notify the Court of his change of address. Rather, court staff located the Plaintiff’s new
address and entered a change of address on his behalf on January 17, 2017.
On March 22, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 18) based on the
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western
Districts of Arkansas. Rule 5.5(c)(2) advises pro se parties that they have the obligation to keep
the Court informed of changes in their address. By affidavit, Defendants indicate that when they
attempted to mail the Plaintiff their initial disclosures, the correspondence was returned to them
with the notation that Plaintiff had been paroled.
On March 29, 2017, a show cause order (Doc. 21) was entered. Plaintiff was given until
April 17, 2017, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to
prosecute this action and his failure to obey an order of the Court. Plaintiff was advised that
failure to respond to the show cause order would result in the dismissal of this case.

Plaintiff did not respond to the show cause order. He has not provided the Court with his
new address.
IT IS CONSIDERED, ORDERED, and ADJUDGED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss
(Doc. 18) is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE based on
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case and his failure to obey the orders of the Court. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ADJUDGED this 26th day of April, 2017.

/s/P.K. Holmes,III
P. K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE