The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
EVERICK L. MONK PLAINTIFF
v. Case No. 1:23-cv-01032
COLUMBIA COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY;
FNU LOWE, Sheriff; SGT. SONYA COLLIER,
Jail Administrator; FNU WOODS; FNU YOUNG, Nurse;
FNU ALEXANDER, Doctor; and WILL JAMES DEFENDANTS
ORDER
On January 6, 2022, Plaintiff Everick L. Monk initiated this pro se civil rights action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of
the Court.
This matter was originally filed in the Eastern District of Texas. (ECF No. 1). On April
25, 2023, the matter was transferred to this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). (ECF No. 7).
On April 27, 2023, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Barry Bryant ordered Plaintiff to submit an
amended complaint on the court-approved form for this district, and, in a separate order, also
directed him to file an in forma pauperis (IFP) application on the court-approved form for this
district or pay the full filing fee of $402 by May 18, 2023. (ECF Nos. 10 & 11). In those orders,
Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply would subject his action to dismissal. Id. Although
those orders were not returned as undeliverable, Plaintiff’s mail containing the case transfer
information was returned as undeliverable and marked “Returned to Sender. Parole.” (ECF No.
12).
When the May 18, 2023 deadline passed without any response or communication from
Plaintiff, Judge Bryant ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed.
(ECF No. 13). The deadline to respond to the Court’s show cause order was June 9, 2023. Id.
The show cause order was returned as undeliverable and marked “RTS-Paroled.” (ECF No. 14).
Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the Court’s show cause order has now passed, and Plaintiff has
failed to respond or communicate with this Court in any way.
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, and he has failed to comply with the
Local Rules requiring him to update the Court with his change of address within 30 days of any
such change. 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 21st day of June 2023.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge