The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
FREDRICK MOON PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:18-cv-4062
SHERIFF JACKIE RUNION;
WARDEN JEFFIE WALKER;
CAPTAIN GOLDEN ADAMS;
SERGEANT ALLEN GRIFFEN;
LIEUTENANT MILLER DEFENDANTS
ORDER
On April 24, 2018, Clifton O. Solomon filed a civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§1983 on his own behalf and on behalf of various other inmates of the Miller County Detention
Center (“MCDC”), including Plaintiff Fredrick Moon. Because Clifton Solomon could not
represent other inmates, the claims were severed and this separate case was opened on behalf of
Plaintiff.
On April 24, 2018, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint and an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application by May 15, 2018. (ECF No. 2). On May
8, 2018, all mail sent to Plaintiff by the Court was returned as undeliverable with a notation that
he was no longer incarcerated in the MCDC. (ECF No. 4). No other address is available to the
Court. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or an IFP application, nor has he
communicated with the Court in any way.
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 hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of June, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge