# Smith v. Miller

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · August 7, 2018

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009385

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** August 7, 2018
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009385

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

RICHARD ALLEN SMITH PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 4:18-cv-4098

SERGEANT (MRS.) MILLER; SERGEANT JACKIE
JAMES REIHMER, JR.; DEBBIE CRAWFORD,
Special Education Department, Arkansas School District;
MITCH CRAWFORD; CAROL REIHMER; RICHARD
WRIGHT; JACKIE JAMES REIHMER; SERGEANT
WADDELL; and JOHN DOE and JANE DOE,
Son and Daughter of Carol Reihmer DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff Richard Allen Smith filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on June 21, 2018.
(ECF No. 1). Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a Court order.
On July 3, 2018, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file an Amended
Complaint on or before July 24, 2018. (ECF No. 6). The order stated that this case would be
subject to dismissal if Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order. To date, the Court’s order
has not been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order and has
not responded to the order 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 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 7th day of August, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009385. Public record. Not legal advice.