The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JAMES L. BROWN PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:20-cv-4027
SERGEANT VARSHAY, Classification Officer
Hempstead County Detention Center (“HCDC”);
JAMES WISE, Jail Administrator HCDC; and
SHERIFF JAMES SINGLETON, Hempstead
County, Arkansas DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of his address.
Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on March 25, 2020. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff
submitted two applications to proceed in forma pauperis, but the applications were incomplete.
(ECF Nos. 2, 7). On April 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Supplement to his Complaint. (ECF No. 8).
That same day, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 9). On April
16 and May 1, 2020, mail sent to Plaintiff at his address of record was returned as undeliverable
marked “RETURN TO SENDER REFUSED UNABLE TO FORWARD.” (ECF Nos. 12, 13).1
Plaintiff has not updated his address of record and the Court is unaware of any alternative address
for him.
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:
1 The word “REFUSED” prompted the Court to contact the Hempstead County Detention Center directly. A person
at the facility informed the Court Plaintiff that was released on March 31, 2020, to the Arkansas Department of
Correction.
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 Complaint (ECF No.
1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 21st day of May, 2020.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge