# Mitchell v. Martin

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · August 10, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10012327

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** August 10, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10012327

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION

TYREKE TRAYVONE MITCHELL PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 1:23-cv-01059

LEROY MARTIN DEFENDANT

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this matter. Plaintiff Tyreke
Trayvone Mitchell submitted this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se, on June 9, 2023, in the Eastern
District of Arkansas. ECF No. 1. The Eastern District Court transferred it to this Court on June
14, 2023. ECF No. 3.
On June 20, 2023, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file an application to
proceed in forma paupris (“IFP”) as he failed to do so with his Complaint. ECF No. 6. The Court
directed Plaintiff to respond with the completed IFP Application or the full filing fee by July 11,
2023. ECF No. 6. Also, on June 20, 2023, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint by July 11, 2023. ECF No. 7. Both orders were returned to the Court as
undeliverable mail on July 7, 2023.
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 wholly failed to prosecute this case. He has never communicated with this
Court, and he failed to keep the Court appraised of his mailing address. Accordingly, the Court
cannot communicate with him. 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 10th day of August, 2023.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10012327. Public record. Not legal advice.