The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
BENJAMIN REID BONDS PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:22-cv-04034
CAPTAIN GOLDEN ADAMS;
NURSE STEVEN KING; NURSE CHELSEA
FOSTER; DR. TIMOTHY REYNOLDS;
WARDEN JEFFIE WALKER; OFFICER
CAM BURNS; SHERIFF JACKIE RUNION;
NURSE PRACTITIONER KEVIN MCCANN;
SERGEANT RICHARD HENDERSON; AL LANDRETH;
SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS; FORMER NURSE
CATHERNE ADAMS; and LIEUTENANT ALICE MILLER DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff, Benjamin Reid Bonds, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on April 15, 2022.
(ECF No. 1). Plaintiff was granted Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by an Order dated May
10, 2022. (ECF No. 8). On November 1, 2022, an Order was entered referring this matter to the
undersigned based on the parties’ consents 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. 73.1 (ECF No. 31). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure
to comply with orders of the Court.
On May 10, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to immediately inform the Court of any
change of address. (ECF No. 8). Specifically, the Court ordered Plaintiff to notify the Court within
thirty days of any transfers or release. Id. The Order also informed Plaintiff that failure to timely
comply would subject the case to dismissal. Id.
1 While the Order referring this case to the undersigned was entered on November 1, 2022, Plaintiff
signed his consent affidavit on May 1, 2022. Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court since August
24, 2022, when he filed his last Motion to Subpoena. (ECF No. 23).
On November 1, 2022, the Court received Notice from Defendants that the discovery
production they sent to Plaintiff’s address of record was returned marked “parole.” (ECF No. 29).
On November 1, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Plaintiff to show cause, by November
22, 2022, as to why he failed to obey the Order of the Court and notify the Court of his release and
change of address. (ECF No. 30). This Order also informed Plaintiff that failure to comply would
result in this case being dismissed. Id. 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). 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 multiple 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.
Furthermore, Defendants Steven King, Chelsea Foster, Timothy Reynolds, Kevin McCann,
Southern Health Partners, and Catherine Adams filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 28, 2022.
(ECF No. 32). Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed with prejudice for
failure to comply with the Court’s Orders. Id. at 3. As explained herein, the Court is dismissing
Plaintiff’s Compliant without prejudice. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED
as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 29th day of November 2022.
s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE