The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
CODY BAKER PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 1:18-cv-1022
ASHLEY COUNTY DETENTION
CENTER DEFENDANT
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Cody Baker’s failure to keep the Court informed of his address
and failure to prosecute this case. Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on March 20,
2018, in the Eastern District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 2). On April 13, 2018, the case was transferred
to the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division. (ECF No. 5).
On April 16, 2018, this Court entered an order granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed
in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 7). This order also advised Plaintiff that the Ashley County
Detention Center was not a proper defendant and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
on or before May 7, 2018. Plaintiff was advised in this order that failure to respond by the Court’s
imposed deadline would subject this case to dismissal, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule
5.5(c)(2). Plaintiff was also advised that failure to keep the Court notified of his current address
could result in dismissal of his case. (ECF No. 7). On April 25, 2018, the order directing the filing
of an amended complaint was returned to the Court as undeliverable with no forwarding address
available. (ECF No. 10). As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint
as ordered by the Court.
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 keep the Court informed of his current address
and has failed to prosecute this case. 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. 2) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 30th day of May, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge