# McCauley v. McDowell

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · April 4, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10011650

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** April 4, 2022
- **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/10011650

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

BILLY RAY MCCAULEY, JR. PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:22-cv-4016

LIEUTENANT MCDOWELL, Southwest
Arkansas Community Correction Center;
and JOHN OR JANE NURSES, Wellpath DEFENDANTS

ORDER
On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff Billy Ray McCauley Jr. filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
pro se. ECF No. 1. That same day, the Court entered its Order directing the Plaintiff to complete
his in forma pauperis application because the original was not complete. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff’s
in forma pauperis application is still pending. ECF No. 2.
On February 28, 2022, mail sent to Plaintiff at his address of record containing the Order
to file an amended in forma pauperis application was returned as undeliverable, indicating “Return
To Sender No Longer At This Address”. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff has not communicated with the
Court since his original Complaint was filed. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to
keep the Court informed of his address.
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 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 4th day of April, 2022.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10011650. Public record. Not legal advice.