The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JAMES M. RAPER, JR. PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:22-cv-04022
TINA MAXWELL, Former Warden,
Southwest Arkansas Community Correction
Center; and J. MINORS, Warden, Southwest
Arkansas Community Correction Center DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff, James M. Raper, Jr., filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on March 1, 2022.
(ECF No. 1). With his complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
(ECF No. 2). However, Plaintiff failed to submit a completed certificate of account with his IFP
application. The issue before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Court orders.
On March 1, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff either to file a completed IFP application by
March 18, 2022, or to pay the $350 filing fee and $52 administrative fee. (ECF No. 3). The order
informed Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in the case being dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff has not responded to the order directing him to file a completed IFP application, and the order
has not been returned as undeliverable.
On March 22, 2022, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to show cause by April 12,
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. On April 7, 2022, this order was returned to the Court as undeliverable. (ECF
No. 6). On April 26, 2022, the Court changed Plaintiff’s address in accordance with a notice Plaintiff
filed in Case No. 4:22-cv-4001.
On June 15, 2022, the Court entered another order directing Plaintiff to show cause by July 6,
2022, as to why he failed to file a completed IFP application or pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 10). This
second show cause order was sent to Plaintiff’s new address. This order also informed Plaintiff that
failure to comply would result in this case being dismissed. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the
order, and the order has not been returned 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).
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.
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 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 and hereby 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