# Strickland v. Runion

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · November 30, 2018

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009580

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** November 30, 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/10009580

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)

## Opinion text

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

GARY RUSSELL STRICKLAND PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No.: 4:18-CV-04143

SHERIFF JACKIE RUNION, Miller County,
Arkansas; WARDEN JEFFIE WALKER;
SERGEANT WALLER; CO. WEBB; and
NURSE KING DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court order and failure to
prosecute this case. Plaintiff Gary Russell Strickland proceeds in this matter pro se pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 12, 2018. (ECF No. 1). Also on October 12, 2018,
an Order was entered granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3). On
October 15, 2018, an Order was entered directing Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint on a
court-approved form by November 5, 2018. (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff was advised that “[t]his case
shall be subject to dismissal if Plaintiff fails to return the Amended Complaint by the Court’s
imposed deadline of November 5, 2018.” (ECF No. 5). To date, Plaintiff has failed to file his
Amended Complaint as ordered.
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 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 comply with a Court Order directing him to file an Amended
Complaint and Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this matter. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Local Rules and Orders and failure to prosecute
this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of November 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009580. Public record. Not legal advice.