The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
RICHARD LATHAM PLAINTIFF
v. Case No. 4:24-cv-04040
KRISTAL MCGUIRE DEFENDANT
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Court Orders and prosecute this
matter. On May 14, 2024, Plaintiff Richard Latham submitted this action pro se. ECF No. 1. On
May 16, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee of $405.00 or file a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis by June 4, 2024. The Court has not received any communication from
Plaintiff since May 14, 2024, when he filed the instant action. ECF No. 1.
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 failed to comply with the Court’s Order to
pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis by June 4, 2024. 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 10th day of June, 2024.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge