Thompson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

KEJUAN THOMPSON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 4:24-CV-04100-MEF

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HENDERSON,

Miller County Detention Center (MCDC);

SHERIFF WAYNE EASLEY, Miller County, Arkansas; and

WARDEN JEFFIE WALKER, MCDC DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, KeJuan Thompson, has filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging that excessive force was used against him, and that he was denied constitutionally

adequate medical care when he was detained at the Miller County Detention Center (“MCDC”).1

(ECF No. 9). Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 3). All parties

have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings

and for entry of final judgment in this matter. (ECF No. 16). This matter is currently before the

Court on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders.

BACKGROUND

Because Plaintiff was a prisoner when he initiated this action and he seeks redress from

government officials, his original complaint was subject to preservice review pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Upon that review, United States Magistrate Judge Barry A. Bryant, now

retired, ordered Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint after noting that the original complaint

contained factual and legal deficiencies that may prove fatal to his claims. (ECF No. 3). Upon

review of the amended complaint, this Court directed him to submit a second amended complaint

1 Plaintiff’s most recent notice of change of address indicates that he is currently incarcerated at

the Varner Unit, Arkansas Division of Correction, in Grady, Arkansas. (ECF No. 31).

describing all his claims against all the defendants. (ECF No. 8). This Court warned Plaintiff that

it would not consider any previous pleading in construing his claims. Id.

Upon review of the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), this Court ordered that the SAC

be served on the Defendants. (ECF No. 10). The Defendants then filed their Answer, denying the

allegations. (ECF No. 13). The Court subsequently directed the Defendants to either submit a

motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Plaintiff properly exhausted his

administrative remedies before initiating this action in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by

March 18, 2025, or to promptly file a notice informing the parties that the Defendants did not

intend to pursue failure to exhaust as an affirmative defense at trial. (ECF No. 14). The Defendants

opted for the latter, filing a notice saying they did not intend to pursue failure to exhaust as an

affirmative defense at trial. (ECF No. 17).

The Court then entered an Initial Scheduling Order governing discovery and directing that

a motion for summary judgment on the merits be filed by August 15, 2025. (ECF No. 18). On

May 15, 2025, the Defendants filed a Motion to Compel discovery, arguing that Plaintiff had failed

to respond to their discovery requests and that efforts to resolve the dispute outside of court had

been unsuccessful. (ECF Nos. 20 & 21). After Plaintiff did not respond to this motion within the

timeframe provided under the Local Rules, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Compel,

directing Plaintiff to produce the requested discovery within 14 days of the date of the Order,

failing which this matter would be subject to dismissal. (ECF No. 22).

On June 16, 2025, Plaintiff’s mail to the MCDC was returned as undeliverable and was

then resent to the Ouachita River Correctional Unit. (ECF No. 24). That same day, Defendants

filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that their mail to Plaintiff had been returned as

undeliverable. (ECF Nos. 25-27). The Court directed Plaintiff to respond to the Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss by July 8, 2025, failing which this matter would be dismissed without prejudice.

(ECF No. 28). On July 3, 2025, Plaintiff’s mail to the Varner Unit, Arkansas Division of

Correction, was returned as undeliverable, marked “refused, unable to forward.” (ECF No. 29).

On July 7, 2025, this Court received a notice of change of address from Plaintiff, indicating that

he was incarcerated at the Varner Unit. (ECF No. 31). Plaintiff’s returned mail was then re-sent

to the address for the Varner Unit provided by Plaintiff. Id.

On July 14, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his case should not be

dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order directing him to respond to the Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 32). Plaintiff’s response to the show cause order was due by August

4, 2025. Id. On August 5, 2025, Defendants requested a stay of the initial scheduling order

deadlines. (ECF No. 33). The Court granted that motion. (ECF No. 34).

On August 6, 2025, this Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as moot because the

basis for the motion was that Plaintiff’s mail had been returned as undeliverable and since that

time, Plaintiff had provided updated contact information even though he had not responded to

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as directed. (ECF No. 35). The Court also ordered that Defendants

submit a motion for summary judgment by September 15, 2025. Id. After Defendants filed their

motion for partial summary judgment, including a memorandum, statement of facts, and five

exhibits in support (ECF Nos. 36-38), the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response by October 7,

2025, and provided instructions on how to respond. (ECF No. 39). This Order has not been

returned as undeliverable. When Plaintiff did not respond by the October 7, 2025, deadline, the

Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to comply

with Court orders. The show cause deadline was November 4, 2025. (ECF No. 40). This Order

has also not been returned as undeliverable. The deadline to comply with the Court’s show cause

order has now passed, and Plaintiff has failed to respond. Indeed, Plaintiff has not communicated

with the Court since filing a notice of change of address in July, over three months ago.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court orders: the Court’s orders directing him to

respond to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39), and the Court’s

show cause order (ECF No. 40). Neither Order has been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff,

therefore, has failed to comply with court orders and has failed to provide any excuse for his

noncompliance. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule

5.5(c)(2), Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to comply with the

Court’s Local Rules and Orders and for failure to prosecute this case.

The only remaining question for the Court is whether the dismissal will be with or without

prejudice. A dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) operates as an adjudication on the merits unless it

is otherwise specified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986).

“At the same time, however, ‘dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b) is a drastic sanction which

should be exercised sparingly.’” Id. (quoting Pardee v. Stock, 712 F.2d 1290, 1292 (8th Cir.

1983)). “The district court’s exercise of this power is within the permissible range of its discretion

if there has been a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.” Id. (internal

citation and quotations omitted). In considering a Rule 41(b) dismissal, the Court must balance

“the degree of egregious conduct which prompted the order of dismissal and to a lesser extent upon

the adverse impact of such conduct upon both the defendant and the administration of justice in

the district court.” Rodgers v. Curators of University of Missouri, 135 F.3d 1216, 1219 (8th Cir.

1998) (internal quotations omitted). In reviewing a dismissal with prejudice, the Eighth Circuit

considers “whether in the particular circumstances of the case, the needs of the court in advancing

a crowded docket and preserving respect for the integrity of its internal procedures are sufficient

to justify the harsh consequences of forever denying a litigant of his day in court.” Id. “However,

the district court need not have found that [the plaintiff] acted in bad faith, only that he acted

intentionally as opposed to accidentally or involuntarily.” Id.

The Court order directing Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment and the show cause order have not been returned as undeliverable, suggesting that

Plaintiff has received these orders and has simply decided not to respond to them. Further, the

Court notes that Plaintiff did not respond to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, despite the Court’s

orders directing him to respond. (ECF Nos. 28 & 32). The Court also recognizes that the

Defendants have expended resources conducting discovery and preparing motions, including a

motion for partial summary judgment on the merits. On this record, therefore, the Court finds that

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders was intentional, as opposed to accidental or

involuntary, and that his failure to respond to two court orders or to communicate with this Court,

combined with the resources expended by the Defendants (and this Court), warrant this case being

dismissed with prejudice. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local

Rule 5.5(c)(2), this matter will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

ORDER

Thus, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) is hereby DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of November 2025.

/s/

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE