Post v. Martin ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION HARRY POST PLAINTIFF v. Civil No. 4:20-cv-04004 SHERIFF DANNY MARTIN, Sheriff Nevada County Jail; ROBERT MISSY, Captain Nevada County Jail; KAREN GHORMLEY, Lieutenant Nevada County Jail; CODY FERGUSON, Investigator Nevada County Police Department; BABBITT; and JOHNNY WEAVER, Officer DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of his address. Plaintiff Harry Post filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on January 6, 2020 in the Eastern District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 2). The following day, the case was transferred to the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division. (ECF No. 4). On February 24, and March 10, 2020, mail sent to Plaintiff at his address of record was returned to the Court. (ECF Nos. 18, 19). To date, Plaintiff has not informed the Court of his current address. 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). Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court informed of his address and has failed to prosecute this case. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the Court finds that this case should be dismissed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 25th day of March 2020. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge