Harrison v. Haskins

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EL DORADO DIVISION

DAVID WADE HARRISON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 1:23-CV-01076-SOH-BAB

DR. HASKINS, et. al. DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions

of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District

Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and

Recommendation. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey Court Orders and failure

to prosecute this case.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint while incarcerated in the Union County Detention Center on

July 25, 2023. (ECF No. 1). He was granted in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status that same day.

(ECF No. 3). On August 10, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a Notice of Address Change indicating he

had been released from custody. (ECF No. 9). In accordance with District policy, the Court

entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an updated IFP application reflecting his free-world

financial status and eligibility to continue proceeding IFP. (ECF No. 10). His IFP application was

due on September 1, 2023. (Id.). When Plaintiff failed to submit his updated IFP application, the

Court entered a Show Cause Order directing Plaintiff to show cause for his failure. (ECF No. 21).

Plaintiff’s Response was due by September 28, 2023. (Id.). To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit

either his IFP application or his Show Cause Response and has not otherwise communicated with

the Court.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

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 that

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).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff has failed to comply with two Court Orders. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this

matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2)

Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s

Local Rules and Orders and failure to prosecute this case.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in

which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.

DATED this 12th day of October 2023.

/s/ Barry A. Bryant

HON. BARRY A. BRYANT

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE