The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER HARTSFIELD, JR. PLAINTIFF
v. Case No. 1:23-cv-1056
LEROY MARTIN; GEAN SIEGER;
COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL;
and JERRY MANESS DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher Hartsfield, Jr.’s failure to comply with Orders of
the Court and to prosecute this matter. Plaintiff 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 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. Id. The Court also entered an order directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by July
11, 2023. ECF No. 7. These Orders were not returned as undeliverable mail.
Plaintiff responded with his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8), and a partially completed
IFP Application (ECF No. 9). However, Plaintiff failed to submit the certification regarding
inmate funds held in his name (“Certificate”). Accordingly, the Court entered an Order on July
11, 2023 directing Plaintiff to submit the Certificate by August 1, 2023. ECF No. 10. This Order
was not returned as undeliverable mail. Plaintiff failed to respond with the Certificate.
On August 7, 2023, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff failed to
respond to the Court’s July 11, 2023 Order. ECF No. 11. This Order to Show Cause was not
returned as undeliverable mail. To date, Plaintiff has not responded or submitted his Certificate.
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 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 hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 17th day of October, 2023.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge