# Jones v. Yealy

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · June 24, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10011772

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** June 24, 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/10011772

## Opinion text

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

TRALYNN DESHUN JONES PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 4:21-cv-04077

WARDEN JEFFIE WALKER, Miller County
Detention Center (“MCDC”); SHERIFF JACKIE
RUNION; OFFICER YEALY, MCDC; and
OFFICER PAXTON, MCDC                                                                                                   DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On May 23, 2022, the parties consented to have the undersigned conduct all proceedings
in this case including a jury or nonjury trial and to order the entry of a final judgment in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. (ECF No. 18). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure
to keep the Court informed of his address.
Plaintiff Tralynn Deshun Jones filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on October 27,
2021. (ECF No. 1). His application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) was granted that same
day. (ECF No. 3). This order informed Plaintiff of his obligation to keep the Court informed of
his current address. In response to this Court’s order, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on
December 1, 2021. (ECF No. 9). On May 24, 2022, mail sent to Plaintiff at his address of record
was returned to the Court as undeliverable marked “NOT HERE RETURN TO SENDER”. (ECF
No. 19).
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 keep the Court informed of his address and 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 Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 9) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of June 2022.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10011772. Public record. Not legal advice.