The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
MARCO GUIRLANDO PLAINTIFF
v. Case No. 1:21-cv-1015
OUACHITA COUNTY;
CITY TELE COIN; SHERIFF
DAVID NORWOOD; CAPTIAN
CAMERON OWENS; NURSE JANE DOE;
GUARD ELLIS; and C/O JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of the Court. Plaintiff Marco
Guirlando originally filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se in the Western District of Louisiana,
on March 25, 2021. ECF No. 1. The case was transferred to the Western District of Arkansas on
March 31, 2021. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was granted Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on May
13, 2021. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on June 10, 2021. ECF
No. 22.
On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff was directed to respond to Defendant City Tele Coin’s Motion
for Summary Judgment by August 2, 2022. ECF No. 64. In that Order, Plaintiff was advised that
this case would be subject to dismissal if he failed to respond by the deadline. Id. On July 18,
2022, Plaintiff was directed to respond to the Ouachita County Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment by August 8, 2022. ECF No. 68. In this Order, Plaintiff was advised that this case
would be subject to dismissal if he failed to respond by the deadline. Id.
On August 9, 2022, Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to respond to Defendants’
Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 72. Plaintiff’s new deadline to respond was set for
September 9, 2022. Id. On September 7, 2022, Plaintiff was granted a second extension of time
to respond to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 75. Plaintiff’s newest
deadline to respond was set for October 21, 2022. Id. Plaintiff did not file a response by October
21, 2022.
On October 26, 2022, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to show
cause, within twenty-one (21) days, why he failed to file his response to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment. ECF No. 76. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Show Cause
Order or Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. No Orders sent to Plaintiff’s address of
record have 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). 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). Also,
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).
Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this matter and has failed to obey the 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 Second Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 22) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 5th day of December, 2022.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge