The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
RICHARD E. GATES PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:19-cv-4130
SHERIFF BRYAN MCJUNKINS, Howard
County, Arkansas’ JAIL ADMINISTRATOR
JANA TALANT DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Richard E. Gates’s failure to inform the Court of his
current address. Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on October 7, 2019. (ECF No.
1). That same day, the Court granted Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application. (ECF No. 3). The
Court informed Plaintiff that he was required to keep the Court informed of his address and upon
his release or transfer from incarceration, he would have thirty days to notify the Court of his new
address. Id. That order was not returned as undeliverable. On December 5, 2019, mail sent to
Plaintiff’s address of record was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 10). As of the date of this
order, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with an updated 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). 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 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 inform the Court of his current address 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 13th day of January, 2020.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge