# Edwards v. Dorman

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · August 22, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10011855

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** August 22, 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/10011855

## Opinion text

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

CHRISTOPHER EDWARDS PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:22-cv-4056

SHERIFF GARY DORMAN, Hempstead County,
Arkansas; MANUEL RODRIGUEZ; DEPUTY
MICHAEL BRADDOCK; and BRENT MILLER,
Public Defender DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher Edwards’ failure to comply with orders of the
Court.
Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on June 30, 2022. ECF No. 1. His
application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted that same day, and the Court ordered Plaintiff
to file an Amended Complaint by July 21, 2022, to clarify his claims using the form approved by
this District. 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 July 25, 2022, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to show cause by August
15, 2022, as to why he failed to comply with the Court’s order directing him to file an Amended
Complaint. ECF No. 6. The order to show cause 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). Also, 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 hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of August 2022.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10011855. Public record. Not legal advice.