stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)
How later courts described this case
- stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
DAVID W MILES, JR. PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 1:18-cv-01051
NICOLE CARTER, Ashley County Jail
Admin, Ashley County Detention Center;
GIA MONDRAGON, Ashley County Jail
Assistant Admin., Ashley County Detention
Center; and NEVADA COUNTY, AR DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff David W Miles, Jr. filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se and in forma pauperis
on August 14, 2018, in the Eastern District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 2). The case was transferred
to the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division, on August 15, 2018. (ECF No. 4). Before
the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of his current address.
Plaintiff submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with his complaint,
but it was incomplete. He failed to have a detention center official complete the certification
regarding inmate funds held in Plaintiff’s name. In addition, Plaintiff submitted his complaint on
a form that was not approved for the Western District. On August 15, 2018, the Court entered an
order directing Plaintiff to complete a new IFP application and file an Amended Complaint by
September 5, 2018. (ECF No. 6). The order was mailed to Plaintiff’s address of record: Ashley
County Detention Facility, 842 Ashley Road 12 West, Hamburg, Arkansas 71646. The order
advised Plaintiff that failure to file a response by the deadline or failure to keep the Court informed
of his current address would result in Plaintiff’s case being dismissed. On August 30, 2018, this
order was returned to the Court as undeliverable marked “RTS-Unable to Forward.” (ECF No. 8).
Plaintiff’s last communication with the Court was on August 14, 2018, when he filed his
Complaint. More than thirty days has passed since mail sent to Plaintiff at his address of record
was returned and Plaintiff has failed to inform the Court of his current address.
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(c)(2) 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 on the ground 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 that 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).
Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court informed of his current address. 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. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of November, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
2