The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
CRAYTONIA BADGER PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 1:18-cv-1032
SHERIFF MIKE LOE, Columbia County;
KELLY BLAIR, Investigator; LEROY MARTIN,
Investigator; DOUG WOOD, Chief Deputy Sheriff,
Columbia County; DEPUTY SCOTT, Columbia
County Jail; TODD DEW, Magnolia Police Dept.;
JOHN DOE, Unknown Magnolia Police Officer; and
JAILOR GILDON DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff Craytonia Badger filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on June 6, 2018. (ECF
No. 1). Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a Court order.
A review of Plaintiff’s complaint reveals that Plaintiff had not clearly identified the persons
he intended to name as defendants and failed to submit his complaint on the court-approved form
for this District. For these reasons, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by
June 27, 2018. (ECF No. 3). The order stated that this case would be subject to dismissal if
Plaintiff failed to comply. The order was not returned as undeliverable and, to date, Plaintiff has
not filed an amended complaint.
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 because 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 24th day of July, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge