The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
DWVANE ANDERSON PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:22-cv-4037
OFFICER OLLIVER, Hope Police
Department DEFENDANT
ORDER
Plaintiff Dwvane Anderson filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on April 29, 2022.
(ECF No. 1). Plaintiff did not file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with his
Complaint. On April 29, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an IFP application by May 20,
2022. (ECF No. 2). The order informed Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in the
dismissal of his case without prejudice. The order was not returned as undeliverable. As of the
date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed an IFP application.
On May 24, 2022, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to show cause by June 14,
2022, as to why he failed to comply with the Court’s order directing him to file an IFP application.
(ECF No. 4). This order also informed Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in this case
being dismissed. The order was not returned as undeliverable. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff
has not responded to the show cause order or otherwise communicated with the Court.
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.
W.D. Ark. 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, the Court finds that this
case should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule
5.5(c)(2). Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of June 2022.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge