The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
MICAH ALAN STEFFLER PLAINTIFF
v. Case No. 4:22-cv-4045
SHERIFF ROBERT GENTRY, Sevier County,
Arkansas; JAILER BLAKE REEL; JAILER
ANNA MEJIA; NURSE TAMMY FOWLER DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of the Court. Plaintiff filed
this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on May 27, 2022. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff submitted an
incomplete in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application with his Complaint. On May 27, 2022, the Court
ordered Plaintiff to file a completed IFP application by June 17, 2022. ECF No. 3. 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 22, 2022, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to show cause by July 13,
2022, as to why he failed to comply with the Court’s order directing him to file a completed IFP
application. ECF No. 5. This order also informed Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in
this case being dismissed. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the show cause order and the
order has not been returned to the Court as undeliverable.
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 two orders of the Court. 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 22nd day of July, 2022.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge