The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
SPENCER JAMERSON PLAINTIFF
v. Case No. 1:23-cv-01057
LEROY MARTIN DEFENDANT
ORDER
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of the Court and to
prosecute this matter. Plaintiff, Spencer Jamerson, originally submitted this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action pro se, on June 9, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas. ECF No. 1. The Eastern District transferred the case to this Court on June 14, 2023.
ECF No. 3.
On June 16, 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. 7. The Court
directed Plaintiff to respond with the completed IFP Application or pay the full filing fee by July
7, 2023. Id. On June 16, 2023, the Court also entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint by July 7, 2023. ECF No. 8. These Orders were not returned as undeliverable
mail. Plaintiff failed to respond to either Order. ECF Nos. 7, 8.
On August 1, 2023, the Court entered two Orders to Show Cause why Plaintiff failed to
respond to the Court’s June 16, 2023 Orders. ECF Nos. 9, 10. These Orders to Show Cause were
mailed to Plaintiff’s address of record at the Columbia County Detention Center, but both were
returned as undeliverable mail on August 10, 2023. To date, Plaintiff has not provided the Court
with his current mailing address or communicated with the Court in any way since the transfer of
this case.
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 and comply with the Court’s 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 16th day of October, 2023.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge