The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
JA’COREYON R. LOGGINS PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 1:22-cv-01063
EL DORADO POLICE DEPARTMENT;
SARAH WILLIAMS; GERID ARDWIN;
COTTON OLIVER; and JOHN SULLIVAN DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff, Ja’Coreyon R. Loggins, originally filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on
October 24, 2022 in the Eastern District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 2). The Complaint was transferred
to the Western District of Arkansas on October 27, 2022. (ECF No. 3). Currently before the Court
is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of the Court.
With his Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP
Application”). (ECF No. 1). On October 31, 2022, the Court found Plaintiff’s IFP Application to
be incomplete and directed him submit a completed IFP Application or pay the full filing fee by
November 21, 2022. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff failed to submit a completed IFP Application or pay
the filing fee.
On November 28, 2022, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to
show cause why he failed to obey the Court’s October 31, 2022 Order and submit a completed IFP
Application or pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause
was due December 19, 2022. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff failed to respond. Further, no mail sent to
Plaintiff at his address of record has 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 multiple Court Orders. 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. 2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of February, 2023.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge