# Works v. Shepherd

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · July 17, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10010067

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** July 17, 2019
- **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/10010067

## Opinion text

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

POSHUA DEWAYNE WORKS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 4:19-cv-4069

OFFICER MASON SHEPHERD, Texarkana
Arkansas Police Department; and OFFICER
MICHAEL BRYAN, Texarkana Arkansas
Police Department DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff Poshua Dewayne Works filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on June 14,
2019. (ECF No. 1). That same day, Plaintiff submitted an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application
but failed to answer the questions needed for the Court to determine his financial status. (ECF No.
2). The Court then entered an order directing Plaintiff to either submit a completed IFP application
or pay the full filing fee on or before July 5, 2019. (ECF No. 3). This order informed Plaintiff
that failure to timely and properly comply with the order would result in this case being dismissed.
To date, Plaintiff has not submitted a completed IFP application and the Court’s order directing
him to do so has not been returned as undeliverable.
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 statein 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).

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. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 17th day of July, 2019.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10010067. Public record. Not legal advice.