The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
WILLIAM LEON WHITE PLAINTIFF
v. Case No. 4:21-cv-4025
SHERIFF BRIAN McJUNKINS, Howard County,
Arkansas; JAIL ADMINISTRATOR JANA TALANT;
JOHN DOE 309 INMATES #1 AND #2; CELL-MATE
DAMARCUS; and JOHN DOE OFFICER #1 DEFENDANTS
ORDER
William Leon White filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on March 23, 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 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of the
Court.
On March 23, 2021, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file an Amended
Complaint by April 13, 2021, to clarify his claims. (ECF No. 6). The order informed Plaintiff that
failure to comply with the order would result in the case being dismissed. To date, Plaintiff has
not filed an Amended Complaint and the order directing him to do so has not been returned as
undeliverable. On April 13, 2021, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to show cause by
May 4, 2021, as to why he failed to an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 7). To date, Plaintiff has
not responded and the order directing him to show cause has not been returned as undeliverable.
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. See 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 comply with two orders of the Court 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 May 2021.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge