# Badger v. Wood

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · September 4, 2018

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009433

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** September 4, 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/10009433

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION

CRAYTONIA BADGER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 1:18-cv-01050

DOUG WOOD, Chief Deputy,
Columbia County Sheriff’s Department
and LINDSEY WILLIAMS, Arkansas
Fire Marshal DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a Court order and failure to
prosecute the case.
Plaintiff Craytonia Badger filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on August 1, 2018.
(ECF No. 1). That same day, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by August
17, 2018, to name the individuals Plaintiff intended to sue in this action and clarify his claims
against each Defendant. (ECF No. 3). The order stated that this case would be subject to dismissal
if Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order. To date, the order has not been returned as
undeliverable and 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). Local Rule 5.5 states 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 4th day of September, 2018.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009433. Public record. Not legal advice.