The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JOHN STEVEN MCBRIDE PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:17-cv-4017
CORPORAL T. HANNING, Miller County
Detention Center (MCDC); OFFICER
SHOUMAKER, MCDC; and DISCIPLINARY
OFFICER K. WATSON, MCDC DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff John Steven McBride’s failure to obey an order of the Court and
failure to keep the Court informed of his address.
On March 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se. (ECF No. 1). That
same day, the Court entered an order advising Plaintiff that he must inform the Court of any change of
address, and that failure to do so could subject his case to dismissal. (ECF No. 3). The order was not
returned as undeliverable.
On January 18, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 18). The
following day, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ motion
on or before February 9, 2018. (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff was advised in the order that failure to respond
within the required period of time would subject this case to dismissal. The order was not returned as
undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment.
On February 27, 2018, the Court issued an order to Plaintiff to show cause by March 13, 2018,
as to why he failed to file a response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff was
advised in the order that failure to show cause would result in this case being dismissed for failure to
obey a court order. (ECF No. 22). On March 9, 2018, the order to show cause was returned to the
Court as undeliverable with no new address available. (ECF No. 23). To date, Plaintiff has not
provided the Court with a change-of-address notice.
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 relevant 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 obey a Court order and has failed to keep the Court
informed of his current 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of March, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
2