The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
LARRY WAYNE NATT, JR. PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:20-cv-04091
SERGEANT MILLER, Nevada County
Detention Center DEFENDANT
ORDER
Plaintiff Larry Wayne Natt, Jr. filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on October 13,
2020. (ECF No. 1). His application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) was granted the same
day. (ECF No. 3). On November 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 7).
On April 19, 2021, the parties consented to the undersigned to conduct all proceedings in this case
including the trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings. (ECF No. 22).
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of the Court.
On March 16, 2021, mail sent to Plaintiff at his address of record – Arkansas Department
of Correction, Grimes Unit – was returned as undeliverable noting Plaintiff had been released from
incarceration and now resided at 233 Pleasant Valley Street, Hot Springs, Arkansas 71901. (ECF
No. 17). When a plaintiff is released from confinement, the Court’s policy is to require
resubmission of affidavits to determine whether he should be required to pay all, or a portion of,
the fees and costs of the lawsuit. Accordingly, on March 31, 2021, the Court entered an order
directing Plaintiff to submit a completed IFP application to the Court for filing or pay the filing
fee of $350.00 by April 21, 2021. (ECF No. 19). The order informed Plaintiff that failure to
timely and properly comply with the order would subject this case to dismissal. To date, Plaintiff
has not complied with the Court’s order to submit an IFP application or pay the filing fee and the
order has not been returned to the Court as undeliverable.
On April 22, 2021, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to show cause by May 13,
2021, as to why he failed to comply with the Court’s order directing him to submit an IFP
application or pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff was advised that failure to show cause
by the Court’s imposed deadline would result in this case being dismissed without prejudice. To
date, Plaintiff has not responded, and the order has not been returned to the Court 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). 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 obey two orders of the Court. 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. 7) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 21st day of May 2021.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE