The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
WILLIE ADONIS BAKER PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:19-cv-04022
OBIE SIMS, Sheriff Lafayette County; and
THEORDIS EARLEY, Warden Lafayette
County Sheriff’s Dept. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff Willie Adonis Baker, representing himself, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in
the Eastern District of Arkansas on February 22, 2019. (ECF No. 2). On February 25, 2019, the
case was transferred to the Western District or Arkansas, Texarkana Division. (ECF No. 4).
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court order.
Plaintiff submitted an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application with his Complaint. (ECF No.
1). However, Plaintiff failed to have the certification regarding inmate funds held in his name
completed by the appropriate detention center official. In addition, a review of Plaintiff’s
Complaint revealed that he had failed to specify what action or inaction by each named defendant
allegedly violated his constitutional rights. As a result, on February 26, 2019, the Court entered
an order directing Plaintiff to either submit the completed certificate portion of the IFP application
and return it to the Court for review and filing or pay the $350 filing fee and $50 administrative
fee by March 19, 2019. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by the
same date. (ECF No. 6). The Court advised Plaintiff that failure to submit the completed IFP
application and Amended Complaint by the Court’s imposed deadline would subject this case to
dismissal. (ECF No. 6). To date, the order has not been returned to the Court as undeliverable.
Plaintiff has not submitted the completed IFP application, paid the filing fee, or 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(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 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 has failed to obey an order of the Court. 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. 2) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of April, 2019.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge