The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
NORMAN CLAY GUTHRIE PETITIONER
v. Civil No. 4:24-cv-04012
STATE OF ARKANSAS BOARD OF PAROLE RESEPONDENT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Norman Clay Guthrie’s (“Petitioner”) failure to prosecute this case and
failure to keep the Court informed of his address. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
recommends the case be dismissed.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 29, 2024, Petitioner filed a pleading titled “Equal Protection Claim”. ECF
No. 1. Upon review of the pleading it appears Petitioner claims he had fully served an imposed
sentence of incarceration and should be released from state custody. Consequently, the Court
interpreted the pleading to be one requesting habeas corpus relief.
Because the Court could not discern the nature of any claim cognizable pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, on January 30, 2024, the Court entered an order: 1) directing the Clerk to mail
Petitioner the Court approved § 2254 habeas form; 2) directing Petitioner to fill out the § 2254
form and return it to the Court by February 29, 2024; and 3) directing Petitioner to submit a verified
application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $5.00 filing fee on or before February 29,
2024. ECF No. 3. In addition, the order informed Petitioner that failure to timely comply with the
Court’s deadlines would result in dismissal of the case.
On February 16, 2024, the documents sent to Petitioner at his address of record were
1
returned to the Court as undeliverable. ECF No. 4. To date, Petitioner has not informed the Court
of his current address or otherwise communicated with the Court.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
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). Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) states 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, the record is clear Plaintiff has failed to prosecute or defend this action and failed to
keep the Court informed of his current address.
I. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends Petitioner’s Petition (ECF No. 1) be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation
2
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. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).
DATED this 18th day of March 2024.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3