The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
ZACHERY JENKINS PLAINTIFF
v. Case No. 4:21-cv-4074
WARDEN TINA MAXWELL, Southwest
Arkansas Community Corrections Center; and
ASSISTANT WARDEN J. MINOR DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order of the Court and failure to
keep the Court informed of his address. Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on
October 26, 2021. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) was
granted on November 29, 2021. ECF No. 6. The order granting Plaintiff’s IFP application advised
Plaintiff that he would be required to immediately inform the Court of any change of address. In
response to this Court’s order (ECF No. 8), Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) on
December 9, 2021. On May 5, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF
No. 16. On May 9, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response to the motion by May 31,
2022. ECF No. 21. The order informed Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in the case
being dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff did not respond and the order directing him to do so
has not been returned as undeliverable.
On June 7, 2022, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to show cause by June 28,
2022, as to why he failed to comply with the Court’s order directing him to file a response to
Defendants’ summary judgment motion. ECF No. 23. On June 13, 2022, this order was returned
to the Court as undeliverable noting “Return To Sender No Longer At This Address.” ECF No.
24.
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 an order of the Court and failed to keep the Court informed of
his address. 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 22nd day of July 2022.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge