The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
RUSTON YATES RUSSELL PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:23-cv-04032
ANDY WINDHAM; TRAE BAKER;
LIEUTENANT KAREN GHORMLEY;
CASSANDRA CASTILLO; DARRELL ELKIN;
HEATHER S. LEDBETTER; and TODD LOE DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff, Ruston Yates Russell, originally submitted this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se, on
March 8, 2023, in the Eastern District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 1). The case was transferred to this
District on the same day along with his Complaint and Application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP
Application”). (ECF Nos. 2, 3). The Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP Application on March 9, 2023.
(ECF No. 5). Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of the Court and
prosecute this matter.
In the Court’s March 9, 2023 Order, Plaintiff was directed to immediately inform the Court of
any address changes. Specifically, the Court provided Plaintiff thirty (30) days to inform the Court
after any transfer or release. The Court also advised Plaintiff that failure to keep the Court informed
of his address would subject this matter to dismissal. (ECF No. 5).
On March 21, 2023, the Court received the Order granting Plaintiff’s IFP Application returned
as undeliverable mail. The Clerk of Court changed Plaintiff’s mailing address to Little River County
Jail (“LRCJ”) and resent the mail. (ECF No. 9). The mail sent to Plaintiff at LRCJ was not returned
as undeliverable. However, on June 20, 2023, the Court received a Service Order sent to Plaintiff at
LRCJ returned as undeliverable. There was no new address available. (ECF No. 20).
On June 26, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 23). The Court directed
Plaintiff to respond to this Motion by July 31, 2022. (ECF No. 25). This Order was returned as
undeliverable mail. (ECF No. 26).
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 orders of the Court and failed to prosecute this case.
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, and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) shall be terminated as
MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 15th day of August, 2023.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge