The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JESSE A. GREEN PLAINTIFF
v. No. 4:22-cv-4010
SHERIFF BOBBY WALRAVEN, Little River
County, Arkansas; JAIL ADMINISTRATOR GINA
BUTLER, Little River County Detention Center;
CAPTAIN TRACY SMITH; JAILER TIM GARNER;
and JOHN DOE JAILERS DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff Jesse A. Green filed this civil-rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February
9, 2022. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application was granted on the same date.
(ECF No. 3). In that Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint by
March 2, 2022. Id. Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint on February 22, 2022. However,
after reviewing the amended complaint (ECF No. 6), the Court noted that Plaintiff had “not clearly
stated how each named Defendant violated his federal constitutional rights, and some of his claims
may be frivolous.” (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff was given until March 16, 2022, to file a second
amended complaint. Id. The Court’s further stated, “[t]his case shall be subject to dismissal if
Plaintiff fails to return the Second Amended Complaint to the Court by the deadline.” Id. Plaintiff
did not file a Second Amended Complaint by the deadline and has not sought an extension of time
to do so.
On March 28, 2022, the Court entered a show-cause order, giving Plaintiff until April 18,
2022, to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey an order of the
Court. (ECF No. 8). The show-cause further states: “If Plaintiff fails to respond by the deadline,
this case shall be subject to dismissal.” Id. Plaintiff has not responded to the Show Cause Order
and the time to do so has passed.
Although pro se pleadings must 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 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).
Plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint as ordered and did not respond to the
Court’s show-cause order. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to obey two orders of the Court and has failed
to prosecute this matter. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local
Rule 5.5(c)(2), this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 26th day of April, 2022.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge