The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
WAYNE AARON WALSH PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 6:17-cv-06076
HOT SPRING COUNTY DETENTION
CENTER; SERGEANT MORROW,
Jail Administrator Hot Spring County
Detention Center; SHERIFF ED
HOLLINGSWORTH, Sheriff Hot
Spring County Sheriff’s Department;
And COUNTY JUDGE BILL SCRIMSHIRE DEFENDANT
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Wayne Aaron Walsh’s failure to obey the Court’s order of
December 4, 2017. Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on October 11, 2016. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff did not
submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with his Complaint. On April 4, 2017,
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) and again failed to submit an IFP application.
On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff notified the Clerk for the Eastern District that he was no longer
incarcerated and had moved to Malvern, Arkansas. (ECF No. 7).
On August 21, 2017, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, Hot Springs Division. (ECF No. 9). On September 21, 2017, the
Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to submit an IFP application and file an Amended
Complaint by October 6, 2017, to clarify his claims. (ECF No. 11). On September 29, 2017, the
order sent to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. At that time, Plaintiff’s last communication
with the Court was on April 17, 2017, when he informed the Court of his change of address. (ECF
No. 7).
On November 20, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiff’s case without
prejudice for failing to inform the Court of his current address. (ECF No. 13). On November 27,
2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File IFP Application requesting that the Court reopen
his case. (ECF No. 14). The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion based on Plaintiff’s assurance that
he was capable of prosecuting this action. (ECF No. 17).
On December 4, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by
December 26, 2017.1 (ECF No. 20). This order informed Plaintiff that his case would be subject
to dismissal if Plaintiff failed to file an Amended Complaint by the deadline imposed by the Court.
Plaintiff did not respond. On January 26, 2018, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to
show cause by February 12, 2018, as to why he failed to file an Amended Complaint. (ECF No.
22). Each of these Orders were mailed to the last known address provided by Plaintiff and neither
has been returned as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint nor has
he responded to the Court’s Order to show cause. Plaintiff’s last communication with the Court
was on December 4, 2017, when he filed his Motion to Proceed IFP. (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.
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.
1 Specifically, the Court’s order directed Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint on the court-approved form for
this District.
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 failed to obey the Court’s order directing him to file an
Amended Complaint on the court-approved form for this District. 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 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 20th day of February, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge