The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
RON WESLEY HAYES PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:19-cv-04054
CORPORAL HENDERSON, Miller County
Detention Center (“MCDC”); NURSE KING,
MCDC; CAPTAIN ADAMS, MCDC;
SERGEANT GRIFFESON, MCDC; SERGEANT
STUDDARD, MCDC; JOHN DOE OFFICERS,
Texarkana Police Department (“TAPD”); CHIEF OF
POLICE ROBERT H. HARRISON; OFFICER
DILLON MCCRAY, TAPD; OFFICER CLAUDIA
PHELPS, TAPD; and PAYTON HARRIS, TAPD DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Joint Motion to Dismiss based on Plaintiff’s failure to keep
the Court informed of his address. (ECF No 53). Plaintiff Ron Wesley Hayes filed this case pro se
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 23, 2019. (ECF No. 1). In response to this Court’s order,
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on June 12, 2019. (ECF No. 6). His application to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) was granted that same day. (ECF No. 7).
On April 6, 2020, Defendants filed the instant motion stating they attempted to depose
Plaintiff in January at the Miller County Detention Center (“MCDC”) but were informed by the facility
that Plaintiff had been released on January 15, 2020. (ECF No. 53). Plaintiff did not inform the Court
or Defendants of his new address. On March 20, 2020, Defendants sent discovery to Plaintiff at his
address of record—the MCDC—and were once again informed that Plaintiff had been released from
the facility in January of 2020.
On April 6, 2020, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to respond to the motion to
dismiss by April 27, 2020. (ECF No. 54). The order informed Plaintiff that failure to timely and
properly comply with the order would result in dismissal of this lawsuit, without prejudice. Plaintiff
did not respond and the order directing him to do so was not returned as undeliverable. On April 27,
2020, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to show cause as to why he failed to respond to
Defendants’ motion. On May 1, 2020, the order was returned to the Court as undeliverable with no
forwarding address. (ECF No. 56).
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).
Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court informed of his 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 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) is
hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of May, 2020.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge