The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JOSEPH ALEXANDER DANSBY PLAINTIFF
v. Case No. 4:24-cv-4046
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OTTO WARNER;
and CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PAIGE BETTS DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Alexander Dansby’s failure to comply with
Court Orders and to prosecute this matter. Plaintiff originally submitted this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action pro se, on May 14, 2024 as part of a class action.1 ECF No. 1. His Complaint was
0F
provisionally filed, and Plaintiff was directed to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) and an amended complaint. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint and completed
IFP application were both due on June 4, 2024. Id. Plaintiff failed to file either document.
On June 6, 2024, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to show
cause why he failed to follow the Court’s May 14, 2024, Order and submit an amended complaint
and IFP application. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff’s response was due on June 27, 2024. Id. This Order
to Show Cause was not returned as undeliverable mail and Plaintiff failed to respond.
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
1 Pro se prisoner plaintiff’s are not suitably situated to represent a class of fellow prisoners in a class action. See e.g.,
Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975).
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 wholly failed to prosecute this case and comply with the Court’s Orders.
Plaintiff never communicated with this Court after his case was initially filed despite two Court
Orders to do so. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule
5.5(c)(2), the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) should be and hereby is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 29th day of July, 2024.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge