# Martin v. Griffin

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · January 18, 2018

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10008924

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** January 18, 2018
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10008924

## Opinion text

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

GREGORY MARTIN PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 4:17-cv-4099

SERGEANT GRIFFIN;
CORPORAL GRIFFIE;
CORPORAL CORNETTE;
and OFFICER CULWELL DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Gregory Martin’s failure to obey an order of the Court. On
November 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff
submitted an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application, but failed to have an appropriate detention
center official complete a certification regarding inmate funds held in Plaintiff’s name. (ECF No.
2).
The Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to either submit a completed IFP application
for review or pay the filing fee by November 28, 2017. (ECF No. 3). The order advised Plaintiff
that failure to respond within the required period would result in the dismissal of his case. On
December 12, 2017, the order was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 5). To date, Plaintiff has
not provided the Court with an updated address and has not responded to or complied with the
Court’s order to either submit a completed IFP application or pay the filing fee. Plaintiff’s last
communication with the Court was on November 7, 2017, when he filed his Complaint.
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.
A party appearing for himself/herself shall sign his/her pleadings. . . . 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 this case, Plaintiff has failed to comply with an order of the Court and has failed to keep
the Court informed of his 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,
Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. In addition,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of January, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10008924. Public record. Not legal advice.