Robinson v. Kelly et al

Filing 64

ORDER re 63 Text Only Order Regarding IFP Application due. Plaintiff has failed comply with a Court Order, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on January 9, 2018. (hnc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

RICHARD ROBINSON
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 6:15-CV-06036

CLINIC MANAGER JACQUELINE
THORN

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Plaintiff proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court Order and prosecute this case.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Address Change indicating he had been
paroled from the Arkansas Department of Correction. (ECF No. 62). In accordance with Court
policy, the Court entered an Order on November 29, 2017, directing Plaintiff to complete a new in
forma pauperis application to accurately reflect his free-world financial status or pay the balance
of the filing fee. Either the IFP application or payment of the remaining balance of the filing fee
was due by December 20, 2017. (ECF No. 63). The Order was not returned as undeliverable. As
of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed the IFP application or paid the balance of the filing
fee. Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court since he filed his Notice of Address Change.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
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 that the district court
possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). Pursuant to Rule 41(b), a district
1

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).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to comply with a Court Order. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this
matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2)
Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s
Local Rules and Orders and failure to prosecute this case.
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of January 2018.

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

2