The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JESSICA RENEE LINCOLN PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:22-cv-04107
SHERIFF BOBBY WALRAVEN;
GINA BUTLER; POLICE OFFICER
JOHN DOE; JERRY NELSON;
JUDGE TOM COOPER; MICKEY BUCHANAN;
DANNA STONE; GREGG PARRISH;
ALAN SMITH; DEPUTY MARCUS PULLEN;
SANDY DOE; JAILOR ASHLEY;
OFFICER BLACKMAN; JOHN DOE; and
CAPTAIN JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff Jessica Renee Lincoln originally filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on
November 4, 2022. (ECF No. 1). Along with her Complaint, Plaintiff submitted an Application
to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2). The Court provisionally filed the Complaint
and IFP Motion. (ECF No. 3). Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with
orders of the Court.
Upon review of Plaintiff’s Complaint and IFP Application, the Court determined both were
deficient and ordered Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint and completed IFP Application.
(ECF No. 3). On November 4, 2022, the Court mailed Plaintiff a blank Complaint form, IFP
Application, and directions to submit both by November 28, 2022. (ECF No. 3).
On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint and Motion for Leave
to Proceed IFP. (ECF Nos. 5, 6). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP on December
2, 2022. (ECF No. 7). However, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint did
not clearly state how each named defendant violated her federal constitutional rights and ordered
an additional amended complaint. (ECF No. 9). This second amended complaint was due on
December 23, 2022. Id. Plaintiff failed to respond with the Court-ordered second amended
complaint.
On February 24, 2023, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause, instructing Plaintiff to
explain why she failed to submit a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff’s response
was due by March 17, 2023. The Order to Show Cause was not returned as undeliverable, and
Plaintiff failed to respond.
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 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 4th day of April, 2023.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge