# Williams v. Clary

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · June 11, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10012652

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** June 11, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10012652

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION

TIMOTHY DAVID WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 1:24-cv-1001

SHENA CLARY; FOSTER DANIAL;
VERNON MORRIS; and DOE DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff, Timothy David Williams, originally filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se, on
January 3, 2024, in the Eastern District of Arkansas. (ECF Nos. 1-2). On the same day, the case
was transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff submitted an incomplete application to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with his complaint. (ECF No. 1). The Court ordered Plaintiff
to file a completed IFP application. (ECF No. 6). The Court granted Plaintiff’s completed IFP
application on February 7, 2024. (ECF No. 12). Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure
to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute this matter.
In the Court’s February 7, 2024 order, Plaintiff was instructed as follows:
Plaintiff is advised that he is required to immediately inform the Court of
any change of address. If Plaintiff is transferred to another jail or prison or
released, he shall have 30 days from the date of transfer or release in which
to notify the Court of the new address.

(ECF No. 12).
On February 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 14). As is the
Court’s practice, the Court Clerk mailed Plaintiff a file marked copy of his amended complaint to
his address of record. On February 28, 2024, that mailing was returned to the Court as
undeliverable mail. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days to notify the Court of his
new address, but he has failed to do so.
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).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and failed to comply with the Court’s orders.
Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address. Therefore,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the Court finds
Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 14) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 11th day of June, 2024.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10012652. Public record. Not legal advice.