The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
MARCUS A. KELLEBREW PLAINTIFF
v. Case No. 1:23-cv-01068
ASHLEY COUNTY DETENTION CENTER DEFENDANT
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of the Court. Plaintiff Marcus
A. Kellebrew originally filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on June 26, 2023. ECF No. 1.
This matter was originally filed in the Eastern District of Arkansas. ECF No. 1. On June
27, 2023, Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray of the Eastern District of Arkansas ordered that venue
be transferred to this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). ECF No. 3. On July 6, 2023,
Magistrate Judge Barry A. Bryant ordered Plaintiff to submit an in forma pauperis (IFP)
application or pay the full filing fee of $402.00 by July 27, 2023. ECF No. 5. In that Order,
Plaintiff was warned that failure to do so would subject this matter to dismissal. Id. That same
day, after identifying potential legal and factual deficiencies with his original complaint, Judge
Bryant ordered Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint also by July 27, 2023. ECF No. 6. That
Order also cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the action. Id.
These Orders were returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 8. In accordance with Local Rule
5.5(c)(2), Plaintiff was provided thirty (30) days to update the Court with his new address, and this
deadline passed on August 16, 2023. On August 4, 2023, Magistrate Judge Christy D. Comstock
ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to comply with
the Court’s orders directing him to either pay the full filing fee or submit an IFP application and
an amended complaint. ECF No. 10. The deadline to respond to the Court’s show cause order
was August 25, 2023. Id. On August 21, 2023, this Order was also returned as undeliverable.
The Court-imposed deadlines to provide a current address and to respond to the Court’s show
cause order have now passed, and Plaintiff has failed to respond or communicate with this Court.
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. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 26th day of September, 2023.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge