The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
DALLAS RAY MAYS PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:18-cv-4077
CAPTAIN ADAMS, Miller County
Detention Center (“MCDC”); and
DETENTION OFFICER HENDERSON,
MCDC DEFENDANT
ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed pro se by Plaintiff, Dallas Ray Mays, under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey an order of the Court and failure to prosecute
this case.
Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on May 8, 2018. (ECF No. 1). Although
Plaintiff applied to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), he failed to submit a completed certification
regarding inmate funds held in his name. That same day, the Court entered an order directing
Plaintiff to either have the certificate portion of the IFP application completed and returned to the
Court for review or pay the filing fee by May 29, 2018. (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff was advised in the
order that failure to respond by the Court’s imposed deadline would subject this case to summary
dismissal for failure to obey an order of the Court. The order was not returned as undeliverable.
To date, Plaintiff has not submitted a completed IFP application or paid the filing fee.
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 obey an order of the Court 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. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 12th day of June, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge