# Brooks v. Smith > District Court, W.D. Arkansas · July 16, 2020 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10010714 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas - **Decided:** July 16, 2020 - **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/10010714 ## Opinion text IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION ADAM BROOKS PLAINTIFF v. Civil No. 1:20-cv-01023 DEPUTY HUNTER SMITH, Ashley County Sheriff’s Office; DEPUTY DAVID McCALPIN, Crossett PD; TROOPER TYLER GENTRY; NICOLE CARTER; JOSH POLLOCK; JULIAN JUANTE; TAD HUNTSMAN; AND TROY McNIECE DEFENDANTS ORDER Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of his address. Plaintiff Adam Brooks filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on May 18, 2020. (ECF No. 1). The following day the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by June 9, 2020. (ECF No. 6). On June 3, 2020, this order, which was sent to Plaintiff at his address of record, was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 7).1 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). 1 A second mailing from the Court to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable on June 17, 2020. (ECF No. 8). Both returns indicated that the Plaintiff was no longer located in the facility he had provided as his address. 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 16th day of July, 2020. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10010714. Public record. Not legal advice.