# Lucero v. Brown

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 10, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10011150

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** May 10, 2021
- **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/10011150

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION

JUSTIN ALAN LUCERO PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 1:21-cv-1001

CHERLYN BROWN, Ouachita County Detention
Center (“OCDC”); COLTON WILSON, Shift Supervisor,
OCDC; CAMERON OWENS, Jail Administrator, OCDC;
NURSE ADAMS, OCDC; AMANDA JONES, Shift
Supervisor, OCDC; TIFFANY KINLEY, Shift
Supervisor, OCDC; and JOHN DOE, ADC DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Justin Alan Lucero filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on January 8, 2021. (ECF
No. 1). That same day, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis
application. (ECF No. 3). Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) based
on Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of his address.
On March 10, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss stating that they attempted to
serve Plaintiff with discovery requests at his address of record, and the requests were returned as
undeliverable. (ECF No. 11). That same day, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file
a response to the motion by March 31, 2021. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff did not respond, and on
April 5, 2021, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to show cause by April 16, 2021, as to
why he failed to file a response. (ECF No. 14). On April 6, 2021, the order directing Plaintiff to
file a response was returned as undeliverable, indicating “RETURN TO SENDER NOT
DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD.” (ECF No. 15).
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 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, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No. 11) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of May, 2021.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10011150. Public record. Not legal advice.