The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
TIMOTHY DAVID WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 1:17-cv-01036
SHERIFF RICKY ROBERTS,
Union County, Arkansas; CAPTAIN
RICHARD MITCHAM;
LIEUTENANT KEVIN
PENDLETON; and LIEUTENANT
STEVE GREEN DEFENDANTS
AMENDED ORDER
On October 19, 2017, the Court issued an Order dismissing this action without prejudice. (ECF
No. 20). The Court’s Order is amended to correct Plaintiff’s name. The Order is amended as follows:
On May 26, 2017, Plaintiff Timothy David Williams filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se.
(ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) was granted the same day.
(ECF No. 3). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey orders of the Court.
In the order granting IFP status, the Court advised Plaintiff that he was required to immediately
inform the Court of any change of address and that failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this
case. (ECF No. 3). On September 6, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel stating Plaintiff had
failed to respond to discovery requests. (ECF No. 14). That same day mail sent to Plaintiff at his
address of record was returned with no forwarding address provided.1 On September 25, 2017, the
Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Compel and directed Plaintiff to respond to the requests by
October 13, 2017. (ECF No. 16). This Order advised Plaintiff that failure to comply would subject
1 Mail sent to Plaintiff was also returned with no forwarding address provided on October 6, 2017. (ECF No. 18).
this case to dismissal. On October 16, 2017, Defendants filed a Notice informing the Court that
Plaintiff had not responded to the discovery requests. (ECF No. 19).
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).
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).
In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to comply with orders of the Court. 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, Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 20th day of November, 2017.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge